Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site trsvax
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!convex!trsvax!hdc
From: hdc@trsvax
Newsgroups: net.astro
Subject: Re: Comet Origins?
Message-ID: <68900004@trsvax>
Date: Thu, 26-Dec-85 18:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: trsvax.68900004
Posted: Thu Dec 26 18:17:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 23:18:12 EST
References: <308@inuxm.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:inuxm.UUCP:308:trsvax:68900004:000:711
Nf-From: trsvax!hdc    Dec 26 17:17:00 1985


/* Written  1:18 pm  Dec 17, 1985 by utastro.U!anita in trsvax:net.astro */
In article <487@ukc.UUCP>, gcb1@ukc.UUCP (G.C.Blair) writes:

>  I am not a dynamacist
>  but rather, I work on the chemistry of the comets and that field
>  does offer constraints but these constraints cannot decide between
>  formation near Neptune and out further.

/* End of text from trsvax:net.astro */

   But aren't those constraints pretty much supposition?  The upcoming
Uranus fly-by might provide a case in point.  I've heard some idle talk that
Uranus' hydrogen/helium ratio may be radically different than the 
accepted line.  If so..., well suffice to say that current theorizing
would have to be radically altered...?