Date: Wed, 7 Apr 93 05:09:00 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #428 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 7 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 428 Today's Topics: Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named DC-X Rollout Report Economics FAQs Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93 nuclear waste Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) Space Research Spin Off SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections. the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) (2 msgs) Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Apr 1993 16:02 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: Blue Ribbon Panel Members Named Newsgroups: sci.space The following press release was distributed April 1 by NASA Headquarters. Space Station Redesign Advisory Members Named Along with Dr. Charles M. Vest, recently named by Vice President Albert Gore to head the advisory committee on the redesign of the Space Station, NASA has announced the names of representatives from government and industry and academic experts from across the country to participate in an independent review of the redesign options being developed by NASA. "I am extremely honored to have been selected to lead this important review panel. America's future in science and technology and as a world leader in space demands our utmost attention and care," said Vest. "We have assembled a diverse panel of experts that, I believe, will bring the appropriate measures of insight, integrity and objectivity to this critical task." The advisory committee is charged with independently assessing various redesign options of the space station presented by NASA's redesign team, and proposing recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the space station program. Space station international partners also are being asked to participate and will be named at a later date. The advisory committee will submit its recommendations in June. Advisory committee members named today include: Dr. Charles Vest Dr. Bobby Alford President, MIT Executive VP & Dean of Medicine Baylor College of Medicine Mr. Jay Chabrow Dr. Paul Chu President, JMR Associates Director, Texas Center for Superconductivity University of Houston Dr. Ed Crawley Dr. John Fabian Prof of Aero & Astro President & CEO MIT ANSER Maj. Gen. James Fain Dr. Edward Fort Deputy Chief of Staff for Chancellor Requirements; Headquarters North Carolina AT&T USAF Materials Command State University Dr. Mary Good Mr. Frederick Hauck Senior VP of Technology President, International Technical Allied Signal, Inc. Underwriters Dr. Lou Lanzerotti Mr. William Lilly Chair, Space Sciences National Academy of Public Board, National Research Administration Council Mr. Duane McRuer Dr. Brad Parkinson President Systems Technology Prof of Astro & Aero Stanford University Dr. Robert Seamans Dr. Lee Silver Former NASA Deputy Admin. W.M. Keck Foundation Professor for Resource Geology California Institute of Technology Dr. Albert "Bud" Wheelon Retired CEO Hughes Aircraft ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 15:33:40 PDT From: Richard Buenneke Subject: DC-X Rollout Report McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. -- On a picture-perfect Southern California day, McDonnell Douglas rolled out its DC-X rocket ship last Saturday. The company hopes this single-stage rocket technology demonstrator will be the first step towards a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rocket ship. The white conical vehicle was scheduled to go to the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico this week. Flight tests will start in mid-June. Although there wasn't a cloud in the noonday sky, the forecast for SSTO research remains cloudy. The SDI Organization -- which paid $60 million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a follow-on vehicle. To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for a sub-orbital DC-XA, SDIO is passing a tin cup among its sister government agencies. SDIO originally funded SSTO research as a way to cut the costs for orbital deployments of space-based sensors and weapns. However, recent changes in SDI's political marching orders and budget cuts have made SSTO less of a priority. Today, the agency is more interested in using DC-X as a step towards a low-cost, reusable sounding rocket. SDIO has already done 50 briefings to other government agencies, said Col. Simon "Pete" Worden, SDIO's deputy for technology. But Worden declined to say how much the agencies would have to pony up for the program. "I didn't make colonel by telling my contractors how much money I have available to spend," he quipped at a press conference at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics headquarters. While SDIO has lowered its sights on the program's orbital objective, agency officials hail the DC-X as an example of the "better, faster, cheaper" approach to hardware development. The agency believes this philosophy can produce breakthroughs that "leapfrog" ahead of evolutionary technology developments. Worden said the DC-X illustrates how a "build a little, test a little" approach can produce results on time and within budget. He said the program -- which went from concept to hardware in around 18 months -- showed how today's engineers could move beyond the "miracles of our parents' time." "The key is management," Worden said. "SDIO had a very light hand on this project. We had only one overworked major, Jess Sponable." Although the next phase may involve more agencies, Worden said lean management and a sense of government-industry partnership will be crucial. "It's essential we do not end up with a large management structure where the price goes up exponentially." SDIO's approach also won praise from two California members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. "This is the direction we're going to have to go," said Rep. George Brown, the committee's Democratic chairman. "Programs that stretch aout 10 to 15 years aren't sustainable....NASA hasn't learned it yet. SDIO has." Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, Brown's Republican colleague, went further. Joking that "a shrimp is a fish designed by a NASA design team," Rohrbacher doubted that the program ever would have been completed if it were left to the civil space agency. Rohrbacher, whose Orange County district includes McDonnell Douglas, also criticized NASA-Air Force work on conventional, multi-staged rockets as placing new casings around old missile technology. "Let's not build fancy ammunition with capsules on top. Let's build a spaceship!" Although Rohrbacher praised SDIO's sponsorship, he said the private sector needs to take the lead in developing SSTO technology. McDonnell Douglas, which faces very uncertain prospects with its C-17 transport and Space Station Freedom programs, were more cautious about a large private secotro commitment. "On very large ventures, companies put in seed money," said Charles Ordahl, McDonnell Douglas' senior vice president for space systems. "You need strong government investments." While the government and industry continue to differ on funding for the DC-XA, they agree on continuing an incremental approach to development. Citing corporate history, they liken the process to Douglas Aircraft's DC aircraft. Just as two earlier aircraft paved the way for the DC-3 transport, a gradual evolution in single-stage rocketry could eventually lead to an orbital Delta Clipper (DC-1). Flight tests this summer at White Sands will "expand the envelope" of performance, with successive tests increasing speed and altitude. The first tests will reach 600 feet and demonstrate hovering, verticle take-off and landing. The second series will send the unmanned DC-X up to 5,000 feet. The third and final series will take the craft up to 20,000 feet. Maneuvers will become more complex on third phase. The final tests will include a "pitch-over" manever that rotates the vehicle back into a bottom-down configuration for a soft, four-legged landing. The flight test series will be supervised by Charles "Pete" Conrad, who performed similar maneuvers on the Apollo 12 moon landing. Now a McDonnell Douglas vice president, Conrad paised the vehicles aircraft-like approach to operations. Features include automated check-out and access panels for easy maintainance. If the program moves to the next stage, engine technology will become a key consideration. This engine would have more thrust than the Pratt & Whitney RL10A-5 engines used on the DC-X. Each motor uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants to generate up to 14,760 pounds of thrust Based on the engine used in Centaur upper stages, the A-5 model has a thrust champer designed for sea level operation and three-to-on throttling capability. It also is designed for repeat firings and rapid turnaround. Worden said future single-stage rockets could employ tri-propellant engine technology developed in the former Soviet Union. The resulting engines could burn a dense hydrocarbon fuel at takeoff and then switch to liquid hydrogen at higher altitudes. The mechanism for the teaming may already be in place. Pratt has a technology agreement with NPO Energomash, the design bureau responsible for the tri-propellant and Energia cryogenic engines. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Apr 93 17:20:36 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Economics >If all the ecomomists in the world were laid end to end . . . >Punchline #1: they would all point in different directions. >Punchline #2: they wouldn't reach a conclusion. Punchline #3: it would be a good idea just to leave them there. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \\ As the radius of vision increases, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Apr 93 15:50:07 GMT From: Bev Freed Subject: FAQs Newsgroups: sci.space I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly. Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling. -- Bev Freed - via FidoNet node 1:129/104 UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!freed INTERNET: freed@nss.org ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:36 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: Gibbons Outlines SSF Redesign Guidance Newsgroups: sci.space NASA Headquarters distributed the following press release today (4/6). I've typed it in verbatim, for you folks to chew over. Many of the topics recently discussed on sci.space are covered in this. Gibbons Outlines Space Station Redesign Guidance Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space station. A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee. Each option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development, operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds. Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA budget for the President's new technology investment. As a result, station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in the rest of the NASA budget. For example, a space station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years. Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of the advisory committee. Generally, the members-designate focused upon administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted. They also received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory committee to consider. Gibbons also announced that the United States and its international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process. To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology. The overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilities. Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving that goal. Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program represents. However, he also is committed to a space station that is well managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation." NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian participation will be accomplished through the East- West Space Science Center at the University of Maryland under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:44:53 -0400 From: Covert C Beach Subject: Mars Observer Update - 03/29/93 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <1pcgaa$do1@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Now isn't that always the kicker. It does seem stupid to drop >a mission like Magellan, because there isn't 70 million a year >to keep up the mission. You'd think that ongoing science could >justify the money. JPL gets accused of spending more then neccessary, >probably some validity in that, but NASA does put money into some >things that really are Porcine. Oh well. I attended a colloquium at Goddard last fall where the head of the operations section of NASA was talking about what future missions were going to be funded. I don't remember his name or title off hand and I have discarded the colloquia announcement. In any case, he was asked about that very matter: "Why can't we spend a few million more to keep instruments that we already have in place going?" His responce was that there are only so many $ available to him and the lead time on an instrument like a COBE, Magellan, Hubble, etc is 5-10 years minumum. If he spent all that could be spent on using current instruments in the current budget enviroment he would have very little to nothing for future projects. If he did that, sure in the short run the science would be wonderful and he would be popular, however starting a few years after he had retired he would become one of the greatest villans ever seen in the space community for not funding the early stages of the next generation of instruments. Just as he had benefited from his predicessor's funding choices, he owed it to whoever his sucessor would eventually be to keep developing new missions, even at the expense of cutting off some instruments before the last drop of possible science has been wrung out of them. -- Covert C Beach dragon@access.digex.com ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 17:22:24 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes: > Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria? I figure > that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it. > Any comments? They exist. Even photosynthetic varieties. Not economical at this time, though. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 07:21:10 GMT From: Joseph Askew Subject: Small Astronaut (was: Budget Astronaut) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pfkf5$7ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts. >THey may want to start a galactic empire:-) Napoleon >complex you know. Genghis Khan was a little guy too. I'd bet >Julius caesar never broke 5'1". I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall for a Roman. He did go on record as favouring small soldiers though. Thought they were tougher and had more guts. He was probably right if you think about it. As for Napoleon remember that the French avergae was just about 5 feet and that height is relative! Did he really have a complex? ObSpace : We have all seen the burning candle from High School that goes out and relights. If there is a large hot body placed in space but in an atmosphere, exactly how does it heat the surroundings? Diffusion only? Joseph Askew -- Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief. Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere, Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 19:35:43 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: Space Research Spin Off Newsgroups: sci.space On 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said: Pat> In article Pat> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: >successful we were. (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both >fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.) > Pat> Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled. Didn't one of them Pat> have a total electrical failure in flight? Was there machanical Pat> backup systems? All reaction-controlled aircraft are fly-by-wire, at least the RCS part is. On the X-15 the aerodynamic control surfaces (elevator, rudder, etc) were conventionally controlled (pushrods and cables) but the RCS jets were fly-by-wire. |The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using |them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing. On the other |hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance |to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base |can't do. Pat> What do you mean? Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh Pat> joints? Navy aircraft have folding or sweeping wings, in order to save space on the hangar deck. The F-14 wings sweep, all the rest fold the wingtips up at a joint. Air Force planes don't have folding wings, since the Air Force has lots of room. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 20:55:12 GMT From: games@max.u.washington.edu Subject: SSTO Senatorial (aide) breifing recollections. Newsgroups: sci.space The following are my thoughts on a meeting that I, Hugh Kelso, and Bob Lilly had with an aide of Sen. Patty Murrays. We were there to discuss SSTO, and commercial space. This is how it went... After receiving a packet containing a presentation on the benifits of SSTO, I called and tried to schedule a meeting with our local Senator (D) Patty Murray, Washington State. I started asking for an hour, and when I heard the gasp on the end of the phone, I quickly backed off to 1/2 an hour. Later in that conversation, I learned that a standard appointment is 15 minutes. We got the standard bozo treatment. That is, we were called back by an aide, who scheduled a meeting with us, in order to determine that we were not bozos, and to familiarize himself with the material, and to screen it, to make sure that it was appropriate to take the senators time with that material. Well, I got allocated 1/2 hour with Sen. Murrays aide, and we ended up talking to him for 45 minutes, with us ending the meeting, and him still listening. We covered a lot of ground, and only a little tiny bit was DCX specific. Most of it was a single stage reusable vehicle primer. There was another woman there who took copius quantities of notes on EVERY topic that we brought up. But, with Murray being new, we wanted to entrench ourselves as non-corporate aligned (I.E. not speaking for boeing) local citizens interentested in space. So, we spent a lot of time covering the benifits of lower cost access to LEO. Solar power satellites are a big focus here, so we hit them as becoming feasible with lower cost access, and we hit the environmental stand on that. We hit the tourism angle, and I left a copy of the patric Collins Tourism paper, with side notes being that everyone who goes into space, and sees the atmosphere becomes more of an environmentalist, esp. after SEEING the smog over L.A. We hit on the benifits of studying bone decalcification (which is more pronounced in space, and said that that had POTENTIAL to lead to understanding of, and MAYBE a cure for osteoporosis. We hit the education whereby kids get enthused by space, but as they get older and find out that they havent a hop in hell of actually getting there, they go on to other fields, with low cost to orbit, the chances they might get there someday would provide greater incentive to hit the harder classes needed. We hit a little of the get nasa out of the operational launch vehicle business angle. We hit the lower cost of satellite launches, gps navigation, personal communicators, tellecommunications, new services, etc... Jobs provided in those sectors. Jobs provided building the thing, balance of trade improvement, etc.. We mentioned that skypix would benifit from lower launch costs. We left the paper on what technologies needed to be invested in in order to make this even easier to do. And he asked questions on this point. We ended by telling her that we wanted her to be aware that efforts are proceeding in this area, and that we want to make sure that the results from these efforts are not lost (much like condor, or majellan), and most importantly, we asked that she help fund further efforts along the lines of lowering the cost to LEO. In the middle we also gave a little speal about the Lunar Resource Data Purchase act, and the guy filed it separately, he was VERY interested in it. He asked some questions about it, and seemed like he wanted to jump on it, and contact some of the people involved with it, so something may actually happen immediatly there. The last two things we did were to make sure that they knew that we knew a lot of people in the space arena here in town, and that they could feel free to call us any time with questions, and if we didn't know the answers, that we would see to it that they questions got to people who really did know the answers. Then finally, we asked for an appointment with the senator herself. He said that we would get on the list, and he also said that knowing her, this would be something that she would be very interested in, although they do have a time problem getting her scheduled, since she is only in the state 1 week out of 6 these days. All in all we felt like we did a pretty good job. John. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 07:12:09 GMT From: Joseph Askew Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pfiuh$64e@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better >technology then we have. AS opposed to BWR/PWRs have they really >considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs. The Japanese are still on the learning curve as far as nuclear power goes. This means that unlike the Germans (who do great things all by themselves) the Japanese tie up with foreign companies. The major one is Mitsubishi (who else) who have a sharing agreement with GE I think. No chance of a new design. >Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design >difficulties. Or the inherently safe types. Sodium has *lots* of chemical problems. Like it eats stainless steel. Very slowly but it gets there in the end. Not what I call a desired property. As for design difficulties, what does sodium do there? It is a bitch and it is only its chemical properties (flwed though they are) that means it gets used. Two loops? That's not a design problem? Isolation from air and water? That doesn't cause design problems? In comparison BWR's a dream rides! >PWR's work real good, but they need lots of steel, and they are highly >complex systems. Simplicity is a virtue. Don't get none of that in a Liquid Sodium Breeder! More steel, more complexity. Joseph Askew -- Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief. Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere, Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 93 07:17:19 GMT From: Joseph Askew Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms ) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pfj8k$6ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Mar31.161814.11683@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >>It isn't feasible for Japan to try to stockpile the amount of oil they >>would need to run their industries if they did no use nuclear power. >Of course, Given they export 50 % of the GNP, What do they do. Well they don't export anywhere near 50% of their GNP. Mexico's perhaps but not their own. They actually export around the 9-10% mark. Similar to most developed countries actually. Australia exports a larger share of GNP as does the United States (14% I think off hand. Always likely to be out by a factor of 12 or more though) This would be immediately obvious if you thought about it. >Anything serious enough to disrupt the sea lanes for oil will >also hose their export routes. It is their import routes that count. They can do without exports but they couldn't live without imports for any longer than six months if that. >Given they import everything, oil is just one more critical commodity. Too true! But one that is unstable and hence a source of serious worry. Joseph Askew -- Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud In the autumn stillness, see the Pleiades, jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu Remote in thorny deserts, fell the grief. Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care North of our tents, the sky must end somwhere, Actually, I rather like Brenda Beyond the pale, the River murmurs on. ------------------------------ Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:58 EST From: "David B. Mckissock" Subject: Washington Post Article on SSF Redesign Newsgroups: sci.space "Space Station Redesign Leader Says Cost Goal May Be Impossible" Today (4/6) the Washington Post ran an article with the headline shown above. The article starts with "A leader of the NASA team in charge of redesigning the planned space station said yesterday the job is tough and may be impossible." O'Connor is quoted saying whether it is possible to cut costs that much and still provide for meaningful research "is a real question for me." O'Connor said "everything is fair game," including "dropping or curtailing existing contracts with the aerospace industry, chopping management of the space station program at some NASA facilities around the country, working closely with the Russian space station Mir, and using unmanned Titan rockets to supplement the manned space shuttle fleet." O'Connor says his team has reviewed 30 design options so far, and they are sorting the serious candidates into three categories based on cost. The Post says O'Connor described the design derived from the current SSF as a high cost option (I believe Kathy Sawyer, the Post writer, got confused here. I listened in on part of O'Connor's briefing to the press on Monday, and in one part of the briefing O'Connor talked about how the White House wants three options, sorted by cost [low, medium, and high]. In another part of the briefing, he discussed the three teams he has formed to look at three options [SSF derivative @ LaRC, modular buildup with Bus-1 @ MSFC, and Single Launch Core ["wingless Orbiter"] @ JSC. Later, in response to a reporters question, I thought I heard O'Connor say the option based on a SSF redesign was a "moderate" cost option, in between low & high cost options. Not the "high cost" option as Sawyer wrote). The article goes on to describe the other two options as "one features modules that could gradually be fitted together in orbit, similar to the Russian Mir. The other is a core facility that could be deposited in orbit in a single launch, like Skylab. That option would use existing hardware from the space shuttle - the fuselage, for example, in its basic structure." The last sentence in the article contradicts the title & the first paragraph. The sentence reads "He [O'Connor] said a streamlined version of the planned space station Freedom is still possible within the administration's budget guidelines." ------------------------------ From: Matthew DeLuca Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: nuclear waste Date: 6 Apr 1993 15:17:07 -0400 Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains Lines: 15 Message-Id: <1pskvjINNqc1@phantom.gatech.edu> References: <1pe8i8INNfoq@gap.caltech.edu> <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu> <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> Nntp-Posting-Host: oit.gatech.edu Sender: news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes: > Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria? I figure >that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it. >Any comments? Sure. Why keep using oil? A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be cleaner and more efficient in the long run. The laws of supply and demand should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of shortage. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 428 ------------------------------