From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #663 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 4 June 1996 Volume 05 : Number 663 In this issue: Re: No Subject Nuclear Reactions Not Techie but Not Off-topi Fissling Fusion RE: lists How Fast Can We go? (Interplanetary- longish) 'low observables' Re: No Subject Re: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Re: How Fast Can We go? (Interplanetary- longish) Re: Nuclear Reactions Re: How fast can we go? How fast can we go TACIT BLUE Re: How fast can we go See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fmarkus@nyc.pipeline.com (Frank Markus) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:38:45 GMT Subject: Re: No Subject On Jun 03, 1996 10:17:50, '"Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" ' wrote: > >>>>>> ""Terry" == "Terry Colvin" writes: > >"Terry> Actually, they even test fired the nuke rocket (I've seen >"Terry> footage) but it was in the late 70s I think. I remember >"Terry> reading the Specific Impulses for the Orion, don't >"Terry> remember the numbers, but it even put the Flourine models >"Terry> to shame. > >"Terry> I think they killed it due to the publics fear of nuclear >"Terry> power, esp a nuke rocket. > >It was killed because of the ban on atom explosions >in space. My understanding is that a nuclear rocket is not (intentionally) explosive. Rather, it uses a nuclear reaction to heat the fuel which provides the thrust. The objection to the nuclear rocket was, as I recall, two fold. In the atmosphere, the irradiated exhaust products were highly toxic and, in space, there was a danger of nuclear contimination of the atmosphere if the rocket did not achieve orbit or reentered (assuming that the rocket was not used to achive orbit but was boosted into orbit by a chemical rocket.) There was a second proposal for the use of nuclear energy for space propulsion (initially proposed by Telford Taylor (???)) which involved a spacecraft's setting off nuclear or thermonuclear devices behind it to jolt it forward through space. I do not believe that it was ever actively pursued. ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 07:25:42 GMT Subject: Nuclear Reactions Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 03:05:38 -0500 From: "Gordon D. Pusch" Subject: Ion Rockets [[was power]] The following message is a courtesy copy of an article that has been posted as well. In article Henry Spencer writes: > In article <9604248329.AA832981562@fhu.disa.mil> "Terry Colvin" > writes: > > > > ...I suppose, however, that if it had turned out that nuclear bombs > > could not be built, then maybe the nuclear arms race would have > > started off with the production of antimatter bombs. > > Very unlikely, actually. Antimatter does not make good bombs. > Even more ordinary nuclear bombs can "fizzle" unless carefully > designed: the reaction gets going but too slowly, so the bomb > blows itself apart before the reaction can proceed very far. Ummm... I think I have to disagree with you on a number of points, Henry... Fission bombs can ``fizzle'' because they rely on a =chain reaction=. Hence, as you say, if the reaction gets going too slowly, one gets an incomplete ``burn,'' since the bomb ``catastrophically disassembles itself'' --- and in this ``disassembled'' state, the chain reaction stops. In the case of fusion bombs, the reaction is strongly temperature- and density-dependent; unless the reactants stay hot enough and dense enough for long enough (Lawson criterion!), the reaction will not go to completion. M/AM annihilation, by contrast, is =NOT= a chain reaction. Furthermore, while the annihilation =rate= will depend on the temperature of the reactants, the annihilation =efficiency= will not. Hence, one is guaranteed that 100% of the antimatter *WILL* annihilate with matter virtually 100% of the time, so long as the bomb and/or detonation environment consists mostly of matter, and the matter and antimatter are well mixed. If both the matter and antimatter are gases or plasmas, it will =NOT= be hard to ensure good mixing --- *especially* since, barring someone discovering ``new physics'' that allows matter to be ``flipped'' or ``rotated'' into antimatter, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to manufacture and store any form of antimatter other than antihydrogen ``ice'' in the foreseeable future. Hence, the problem will instead be keeping it cold enough to =prevent= it from evaporating and mixing !!! > With antimatter this problem is far worse, because while fission > and fusion occur throughout the reaction volume, the matter- > antimatter reaction occurs only on a contact surface. This may =perhaps= be true of the infamous (and hypothetical) ``contraterrene cannonball,'' but it will certainly =NOT= be true of antihydrogen gases or plasmas !!! From the LEAR experiments, we know that the annihilation lifetime of a slow antiproton in condensed bulk matter is quite short; hence all that will be required is a way of rapidly mixing the antimatter with matter. For example, one could implode a shell of normal matter onto an antihydrogen ice nugget, and instead of trying to *suppress* turbulent mixing as one does in inertial confinement fusion, one would instead deliberately *induce* it; near-complete mixing should be had after only a few Kelvin-Helmholtz instability times. Surround the whole thing with a normal-matter tamper to thermalize some of the emitted radiation, and the mixture should rapidly heat up to the point where thermal diffusion will complete the mixing process. > It's exceedingly difficult to get a major explosion with antimatter. > (Tiny ones are not hard, since the square-cube law gives you more > surface area per volume as the scale shrinks.) The square/cube law will be irrelevant to sufficiently well-mixed gases or plasmas of matter; as I've argued, it should be possible to achieve this on timescales comparable to a few Kelvin-Helmholtz timescales, which can be made short compared to the implosion timescale. Regarding production of an explosion: contrary to common belief, the majority of the proton/antiproton annihilation energy is released, not as gammas, but rather in the form of pions (as I believe you yourself have pointed out in other posts). One gets roughly equal numbers of pi+, pi-, and pi0 particles, with energies in the ~400--800 MeV ballpark. The pi0's go to two gammas almost immediately; the gammas will have an attenuation length of only a few tens of gm/cm^2 in matter. The pi+'s and pi-'s have a range of only a few tens of meters before they decay to muons, even in vacuum; furthermore, in matter, both pions and muons have a range of only a few tens to hundreds of grams/cm^2. Air has a density of about a 1.25 kg/m^3; hence, most of the released energy will be deposited within a few tens to hundreds of meters of the bomb; I would expect this to generate a nice, hot fireball, just like a fission or fusion device. > Also, with production technology we can reasonably foresee, > antimatter is impossibly expensive for weapons applications. > Even the US military has finite budgets. The cost of burning > a city down with conventional weapons is large but not infinite. Now, on =this= point I have to agree with you, Henry... :-) Even =Bob Forward= doesn't think we'll get the price down below US$ 60.e6/mg using foreseeable Earth-based technologies --- and, at 43 kT/gm of antimatter, we're talking roughly =US$ 1.4e9= per kiloton !!!!!!!!! As you say, even the Pentagon's budget isn't =THAT= large... ;-) Gordon D. Pusch | Internet: Math and C.S. Div., Bldg.203/C254 | FAX: (708) 252-5986 Argonne National Laboratory | Phone: (708) 252-3843 9700 South Cass Ave. | Argonne, IL USA 60439-4844 | http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/pusch/ But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=... ------------------------------ From: "Alun Whittaker" Date: 3 Jun 1996 08:03:43 -0800 Subject: Not Techie but Not Off-topi Subject: Time:08:30 OFFICE MEMO Not Techie but Not Off-topic Date:6/3/96 This is unlikely to be a revelation to the hard core but (for the benefit of new members) - I finally got around this weekend to reading Skunk Works by Ben Rich and Leo Janos (plus sidebars by many of the aviation, military and political who figured in the Skunk Works history from the fifties to the nineties). This book is a definite course requirement for readers of this list. Don't read the book as a definitive history because it has many factual errors, inconsistences and unexplained gaps. Some of these may be explicable by continuing security black-outs. Others result from poor proof-reading - - I can't believe, for example that an engineer like Rich would refer to a computational step taking MINI-seconds. Many other inconsistencies come from the different opinions and perpectives of the contributors and that is what gives the book its texture. This is a series of personal recollections, usually from two or three differing viewpoints. At the end of the book, you may have some doubts about what happened and when, who really screwed-up and what was the tail number. On the other hand, you'll have strong feeling for the personalities, personal style and business methods that made the Skunk Works so successful and which, Rich seems to be saying in his last chapter, are now on the endangered list. Its a little like a business seminar taught by Doc Savage! I won't be lending this one out. It will live on my work room bookshelf. ALUN WHITTAKER ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 09:53:27 PDT Subject: Fissling Fusion Doesn`t the timing of the Tritium injection determine whether it pops or not? Chuck ------------------------------ From: Paul.Biondolillo@scismail.sci.com Date: Monday, 3 June 1996 12:25pm CT Subject: RE: lists On Saturday, 1 June 1996 P. Joyce wrote: > > how can i get a list of other mail lists on this server?? > > > > taa all The following message sould be helpful. Paul Biondolillo - ---------(forwarded message)----------------------------------------- **** Help for Majordomo@mail.orst.edu: This is Brent Chapman's "Majordomo" mailing list manager, version 1.93. In the description below items contained in []'s are optional. When providing the item, do not include the []'s around it. It understands the following commands: subscribe [
] Subscribe yourself (or
if specified) to the named . unsubscribe [
] Unsubscribe yourself (or
if specified) from the named . get Get a file related to . index Return an index of files you can "get" for . which [
] Find out which lists you (or
if specified) are on. who Find out who is on the named . info Retrieve the general introductory information for the named . lists Show the lists served by this Majordomo server. help Retrieve this message. end Stop processing commands (useful if your mailer adds a signature). Commands should be sent in the body of an email message to "Majordomo@mail.orst.edu". Commands in the "Subject:" line NOT processed. If you have any questions or problems, please contact "Majordomo-Owner@mail.orst.edu". ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1996 11:17:19 PDT Subject: How Fast Can We go? (Interplanetary- longish) This is not skunky, but interesting in view of recent discussions. I spent Saturday reading "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence M. Kraus. (Fwd by Stephan Hawking!) Well, I realize that this makes my geekdom official, (along with knowing "We are the knights that go NEE!") but what the hell. The aliens and MJ12 are after all of us anyway. Actually, the book is kind of fun. Kraus holds the Chair of the Physics department at Case-Western, so the rhetoric does hold authority. Hawking tends to lend a credibility also! Anyway, I though I would quote a passage that seems relevant and fun too. ".....As I have described in chapter 1, a rocket is a device that propels material backward in order to move forward. As you might imagine, the faster the material is propelled backward, the larger will be the forward impulse the rocket will receive. Material cannot be propelled backward any faster than the speed of light. Even propelling it at light speed is not so easy: the only way to get the propellant moving backward at light speed is to make the fuel out of matter and antimatter, which (as I describe in later chapter) can completely annihilate to produce pure radiation moving at the speed of light. However, while the warp drive aboard the Enterprise uses such fuel, the impulse drive does not. It is powered instead by nuclear fusion- the same nuclear reaction that powers the Sun by turning hydrogen into helium. In fusion reactions, about 1 percent of the available mass is converted into energy. With this much available energy , the heluim atoms that are produced can come streaming out the back of the rocket at about an eighth the speed of light. Using this exhaust velocity for the propellant, we then can calculate the amount of fuel the Enterprise needs in order to accelerate to, say, half the speed of light. The calculation is not difficult, but I will just give the answer here. It may surprise you. Each time the Enterprise accel- erates to half the speed of light, it must burn 81 TIMES ITS ENTIRE MASS in hydrogen fuel. Given that a Galaxy Class starship such as the Picard`s Enterprise-D would weigh in excess of 4 million metric tons[3], this means that over 300 metric tons of fuel would need to be used each time the the impulse drive is used to accelerate the ship to half light speed! If one used a matter-antimatter propulsion system for the impulse drive, things would be a little better. In this case one would half to burn merely twice the mass of the Enterprise in fuel each such acceleration. It gets worse. The calculation I described above is correct for a single acceleration. To bring the ship to a stop at its destination would require the same factor of 81 times its mass in fuel. This means that just to go somewhere at half the speed of light and stop again would require fuel in the amount of 81X81=6561 TIMES THE ENTIRE SHIP`S MASS! Moreover, say that one wanted to acheive the acceleration to half the speed of light in a few hours ( we will assume, of course, that the inertial dampers are doing their job of shielding the crew and ship from the tremendous G-forces that would otherwise ensue). The power radiated as propellant by the engines would then be about 10E22 watts- or about a billion times the total average power presently produced and used by all human activities on Earth! Now, you might suggest (as a bright colleague of mine did the other day when I presented him with this argument) that there is a subtle loophole. The argument hinges on the requiment that you carry your fuel along with the rocket. What if, however, you harvest your fuel as you go along?After all, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Can you not sweep it up as you move through the galaxy? Well, the average density of matter in our galaxy is about one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. To sweep up just one gram of hydrogen per second, even moving at a good fraction of the speed of light, would require you to deploy collection panels with a diameter of over 25 miles. And even turning all this matter into energy for propulsion would provide only about a hundred-millionth of the needed propulsion power! To paraphrase the words of the Nobel prizewinning physicist Edward Purcell, whose arguments I have adapted and extended here: Ifthis sounds preposterous to you, you are right. Its preposterousness follows from the elemental laws of classical mechanics and special relativity. The arguments presented heer are as inescapable as the fact that a ball will fall when you drop it at the Earth`s surface. Rocket-propelled space travel through the galaxy at near light speed is not physically practical, now or ever!" (Kruass, 1995) The rest of the book is just as neat. I really liked it. As an engineer, I can live with the mass ratio. Apollo was almost on the same order of magnitude! Its the power requirements and "inertial dampers" required that stop me. Chuck- "Aerospace Engineer to the Beer Store" "The Physics of Star Trek", Lawrence Krauss, 1995 Basic Books, New York, NY. ------------------------------ From: THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 15:53:16 EDT Subject: 'low observables' >Skunkers talk a lot about radar and IR stealth, with one recent thread about >visual stealth, so here's something that may be heading for noise stealth . .. Professionals, to the extent they discuss it publically, have always referred to 'low observables' which includes (and always has) RADAR, IR, Visual and acoustic signature... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:31:38 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: No Subject On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Frank Markus wrote: > propulsion (initially proposed by Telford Taylor (???)) which involved a > spacecraft's setting off nuclear or thermonuclear devices behind it to jolt > it forward through space. I do not believe that it was ever actively > pursued. Orion, as it was called was extensively studied and a conventionally powered (!) model was demonstrated. "The Starflight Handbook" describes it, and there are plenty of other sources (which I can't remember offhand). Freeman Dyson was involved and there is an interesting chapter devoted to his experience in his autobiography "Disturbing the Universe." Good book, BTW - well written, meetings with interesting people (eg: Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer) and philosophical speculation from a scientist's perspective. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 23:15:17 Subject: Re: Skunky Noise Reduction Potential ? Mark writes : >Sunkers talk a lot about radar and IR stealth, with one recent thread >about visual stealth, so here's something that may be heading for noise >stealth .... ==================================== Prof Ian Waitz at MIT is doing some very interesting work to reduce engine fan noise by blowing air through the trailing edge of the turbine blades. It seems pockets of still air that create a lot of noise collects directly behind the blades in much the same way that there is a pool of still water behind a rock in a fast moving stream. I hope I haven't simplified this concept to a point at which it makes no sense...if so, it's my fault not his :) Any comments would be very welcome...in the meantime, I'll dig out the information I have on his project...that's if anyone would like to know more of course. Best David ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:53:57 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: How Fast Can We go? (Interplanetary- longish) On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > This is not skunky, but interesting in view of recent discussions. > I spent Saturday reading "The Physics of Star Trek" by > Lawrence M. Kraus. (Fwd by Stephan Hawking!) Kraus has written an article which is a boiled-down version of the book for the 20th April 1996 issue of New Scientist, if anyone wants to save a few dollars/pounds/yaks. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 10:39:32 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Nuclear Reactions On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Terry Colvin wrote: > > Fission bombs can ``fizzle'' because they rely on a =chain reaction=. > Hence, as you say, if the reaction gets going too slowly, one gets an > incomplete ``burn,'' since the bomb ``catastrophically disassembles > itself'' --- and in this ``disassembled'' state, the chain reaction > stops. That's a mild way of putting it. I remember reading an ironic article on DIY nuclear terrorism several years ago and coming across some lines which I paraphrase from memory below: "Be careful positioning the U-235 hemisphere over the gun barrel, because if you drop it and it falls to hit the other hemisphere, it will come back up again very quickly. You will be dead. So will your compatriots. Your house will also be destroyed. However, the reaction will have been incomplete and you will not have destroyed the city and you will have therefore failed in your aim." - --Brett ------------------------------ From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 18:02:52 Subject: Re: How fast can we go? This very interesting nuclear (and other new) propulsion thread may not be as far off in the future as some have suggested. From the Air Force' Phillips Laboratory (USAF AF Material Command) www page titled, "High Energy Density Materials," "...is developing revolutionary new rock propellants with maximum energy in the smallest mass possible." Quote, "Military Applications: America's access to space is limited by current propulsion technology." Under the heading, Phillips Laboratory Significant Projects Listing, Space and Missle Technology Directorate, subtitle: Space Nuclear Power (Topaz International Program)- TIP is an effort to test and evaluate a complete, unfueled Russian thermionic space reactor power system using electric heaters to stimulate nuclear fuel. Data will be trasitioned to the U.S. nuclear industry for use in our space program. Contractors: In-house (U.K., French, Russian participants) Status: On-going. From JPL' www pages Section II. Space Flight Projects, subtitled: Advanced Technologies, paragraph 2, "The Space Power-100 (SP-100) Project at JPL is developing key components of a nuclear reactor power system for use in planet and asteroid exploring missions. An array of thermocouples converts heat from the reactor to provide more than 25 times the power of a typical RTG." In light of the above consider the June 3, 1996 AW&ST article pg 93 by Joseph C. Anselmo, Architect Maps Milspace Defenses. The US DoD has a new space architect, Maj Gen. Robert S. Dickman who will develop programs to protect the US satellites against physical and electronic attack. And quote, "Dickman said his office was also formed by the Defense Dept. because of the hostile reations from the Army and Navy to the Air Force's pitch "to take over the entire space business." Byron Weber > > > > ------------------------------ From: volivaa@planetc.com Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 22:21:17 -0700 Subject: How fast can we go Speaking of the "Physics of Star Trek" and how fast can we theoretically go, Check out this link to a theory coming from 6 IBM scientists that claim that "beam me up Scotty" teleportation technology is possible. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ I post this because if this theory is validated, one might conceivably disintegrate an object, encode it on a light beam, and ship to a remote decoder. For short distances one might be able to travel "at the speed of light". Long distances would be a problem, since you have to get there first to set up the decoder. It's interesting that the same Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) theoretical framework that supposedly makes this teleportation theoretically possible is also described by several as the real theoretical basis for something as bizarre as the portal in the TV show "Sliders". EPR relates to this concept via what is referred to as the "creation of nonlocality". The site above gives a substantial amount of referenced material. This post has little to do with my employer, and is meant solely to encourage an enlightened discussion. ------------------------------ From: Xelex@aol.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 00:20:05 -0400 Subject: TACIT BLUE Many readers have expressed an interest in TACIT BLUE. Here is a capsule summary of available information. : Timeline: Program initiated in 1978 First Flight: 5 February 1982 Last Flight: 14 February 1985 Stored at Area 51: 1985 to 1996 Declassified: 30 April 1996 Public display at USAF Museum: 22 May 1996 Purpose and development of TACIT BLUE: Originally dveloped as a stealthy surveillance aircraft to operate near the forward edge of the battle area. Later used as a technology demonstrator that contributed to such programs as B-2, YF-23, E-8 Joint-STARS, and Tri-service Standoff Attack Missile. First aircraft to demonstrate low-observability using curved surfaces. One complete airframe built by Northrop. Never assigned a serial number. A second, partially completed airframe served as a back-up. Program cost for development, construction, and flight test was $165 million. Specifications: Length: 55' 10" Height: 10'7" Wing Span: 48'2" Weight: 30,000 lbs. Engines (2): Garrett ATF 3-6 high-bypass turbofan Armament: none Crew: one Sensors: low-probability-of-intercept radar, and classified Design operational speed: 287 mph/250 knots Operating altitude: 25-30,000 feet Number of test sorties: 135 Flight hours accrued: just under 250 Pilots: Only five pilots flew TACIT BLUE. Their names, in order, are as follows: Mr. Dick Thomas (Northrop) Lt. Col. Ken Dyson (USAF) Lt. Col. Russ Easter (USAF) Lt. Col. Don Cornell (USAF) Maj. Dan Vanderhorst (USAF) Description: The planform is nearly rectangular, flaring at the aft end. Twin all-moving square tail fins are outwardly-canted (as on the YF-23) and curve outward slightly. The side view gives a hump-backed appearance. The fuselage blends into narrow chines on the sides. The wings are tapered and straight, with a thick cord. The are placed slightly aft of center. The cockpit windows are relatively large, and wrap around the upper part of the forward fuselage. A single ejection seat occupies the center of a wide cockpit. (Pilots complained of poor side visibilty, and the need to lean way over to see out the sides). The landing gear, taken from a Northrop F-5E, gives TACIT BLUE a narrow wheel base. The nose gear has a single door hinged left of the strut. The main gear has an aft door inboard of the strut which is open as long as the gear is down. A second door, forward and inboard of the strut, cycles during takeoff and landing. The main gear wells are high enough inside for a man to stand upright. The exhaust is located on to of a "platypus tail," and is curved on top and flat on the bottom. A single intake is loacated on top of the fuselage, over the wings. Pitot tubes and sensors are located inside the intake, on its lower surface. A crew-access hatch is located on the lower right side, just forward of the nose gear. Sensor "windows" (not visible) occupy a large potion of the flat fuselage sides behind the cockpit. Paint scheme is overall light gray. The only markings worn during flight test were ejection seat warning triangles and emergency rescue instructions. The emergency escape hatch is just above the ejection seat. The aircraft has an outer shell constructed mainly of non-metallic composites, and some aluminum. The interior is mainly conventional aluminum and titanium construction. Anecdotes: The TACIT BLUE test team referred to the aircraft as "The Whale," and called themselves "Whalers." Lockheed personnel testing the F-117 at Area 51 during the early 1980s called it "Brand X," and according to some sources, "Shamu." All flights were made during daylight hours. Lt. Col. Ken Dyson was the only pilot to fly both the Lockheed HAVE BLUE and Northrop TACIT BLUE stealth technology demonstrators. Hopefully, this will answer many questions about this unique aircraft. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 02:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: How fast can we go On Mon, 3 Jun 1996 volivaa@planetc.com wrote: > Speaking of the "Physics of Star Trek" and how fast can we theoretically go, Check out > this link to a theory coming from 6 IBM scientists that claim that "beam me up Scotty" > teleportation technology is possible. > http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/ I post this because if this I believe Richard Buckminster Fuller said: If matter and energy are interchangeable... therefore teleportation is possible. Mr. Fuller and others geniuos I spoke before said that teleportation is possible only in object, it is not possible in "liveform" due to some fundamental structure that liveforms have. Another issue is about what will happen with the soul during teleportation? (if you believe it exist of course). May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Well, here is a new ship (NCC-1701D)... But she got the right name (Enterprise)... Now, you remember that, do you? You treat her like a lady, and she will always bring you home." Dr. McCoy (Star Trek) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #663 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).