Valeev is by no means the worst offender

jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

Compliments of my lab notebook, I get to write up what
doesn't work as I go. :-)

Our "lab notebooks" were called project notebooks and were
used only as proof we did all the development ourselves if,
and only if, there was ever a lawsuit. What we wrote
during meetings etc. wasn't supposed to be done on scraps
of paper nor IBM cards but a bound notebook.

Same here...although I have multiple notebooks and one
of those is specifically for meetings (I don't want doodles
in my actual lab one. :-))

Now,
if you get reproducible failures with something that's worked
in the past, you might need to investigate, but most of the
time simply remaking media or stock solutions can "fix"
things...this is especially true if someone unfamiliar (read:
student) with SOP made them up.

How do you pick the very first critter?

Well, it depends on what sort of hypothesis you're testing...
feel free to hit "N" if this seems too verbose.

Our first critter was Pseudomonas fluorescences and it
was chosen for a couple reasons because we were testing
a couple ideas. The first was: Can one even image a living
microbe in a synchrotron x-ray beam? (Answer: Yes, and
the results were published in Science in 2004.) To that
end we wanted something that was relatively easy to cul-
ture and maintain...and, on a microbial scale, biggish. The
second thing we were tested was whether or not exuded
microbial exopolysaccharides (EPS in Real Life) could be
used to bind contaminant metals. Pf produces a _lot_ of
extra-cellular material...in fact, if you're trying to ID this
critter on a plate, you basically look for the colony which
most closely resembles snot.

The second critter (Shewanella oneidensis MR1) was chosen
because it was robust, facultative (can grow under either
aerobic or anaerobic conditions), versatile (it could use a
lot of different e- acceptors and donors) and, most impor-
tantly, could reduce metals. While it appeared we were
widening the net from Pf, we were actually narrowing it...
to a anaerobic metal reducer. (The fact that it wasn't
strictly anaerobic made it a bit easier to maintain.) We're
just about to wrap up on it and get the last couple papers
and presentations out this year.

We're currently casting about for a new critter and we've
a couple auditioning under the (figurative) microscope...and
we're narrowing the field further...this time we want a strict
anaerobe which can reduce metal...or more specifically, re-
duce U(VI) and it needs to be an in-situ critter which can be
biostimulated (it also needs to be culturable in the lab so we
can abuse it down at the beamline). Which is why my most
recent collaboration has the unlikely working title of "Micro-
bial Community Dynamics...[yadda, yadda]....from an UMTRA
site" ("UMTRA" to save googling stands for "Uranium Mill
Tailings Remedial Action")

Candidly, I didn't expect to be involved in meta-genomics
at this stage of my career.

whereas I'm parked in a for-info
one. Different settings are going to result in different time
frames, yours, being more market driven is going to be more
impatient for useable, marketable results. While we don't
have the luxury of lolly-gagging about, we also don't have a
shareholder pointing a metaphorical gun to our heads asking
what the delay in release is.

Nor paying customer :-).

Nope...although sometimes it seems like they want to
rework us to fit into a corporate model pigeonhole. I don't
know that scientific square pegs can be filed off to fit
into the round holes of an MBA mentality, but they're
always welcome to run the experiment. :-)

It's not that we've no pressure,
it's just that's it's a different sort...more self inflicted. :-)

Understood. One of the things the computer biz is missing right
now is the fact that we never wrote up what didn't work and why
it didn't work. Some things didn't "work" because the technology
didn't exist. Other things didn't work because it tried to break
the laws of physics or depended on humans to do the "right"
thing. As a result, I'm seeing many wheels getting reinvented
today.

laugh We have a radiolimnologist in our group who's been
around ANL forever and has forgotten more about Chemistry
than most people will ever know...and we've discovered it's
always a good idea to get his input on "New" ideas because
more often than not you'll hear "I remember we tried some-
thing like that in 1965..."

There's nothing new under the sun...it's merely the old with
the serial numbers filed off and a new spin. :-)

Deirdre

jmfbahciv wrote:

Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote:

a fact which I'm reminded of every
time I find myself up to my elbows in dirty glassware or
on the floor peering up into the the bowels of some piece
of non-functioning equipment.

Do you do plumbing in your work?

Heaven forfend, the maintenance folk would murder me
if I tried...I'm allowed to dissect my own stuff, anything
which counts a building intrastruction is their bailiwick.
Which is not to say I don't get my fix of plumbing issues
at home, but my usual response is to tell Himself that
there's water pouring out from under the sink cabinet
and then scoot off to work. :-)

(Microbio has an additional yuck! factor...it frequently
stinks in the most literal of gag-inducing sense of the
word...Shewanella came by the "putrefaciens" designator
very honestly and some of the Geobacters, when grown
in certain media, smell like blood.

Sounds like farming :-). The words Shewanella and Geobacters
are new to me.

Soil critters.

No wonder my daughter
opted for Molecular instead of Micro. :-))

Good for her. Did, or do, you have a lab at home?

No...the capital costs are prohibitive, to say nothing of the
safety concerns. My bugs aren't pathogens, but just saying
"Microbial culture" can frighten some people...they've only
heard about the nasties like Anthrax or MRSA (the antibio-
tic resistant Staph aureus) and frequently don't make the
distinction between my pets and their anti-social relatives.

I do the wet lab bench work on site and the reading, writing
and research from my office at home. I just came off a
spate of lab work and am now in the process of a week of
literature reading...it's the best of both worlds, in truth.

Deirdre

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.... Well then, instead of you whining about it
thank me that I do not repost your Andorklian "untruths".
Be grateful that I shelter you from embarrassment
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahaha...


"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be treated
with respect.

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

Why are you waffling now, Andro?
Are your many "no brainers" no-brainers, or no no-brainers?
How much brains do you need to make up your mind?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the
Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the
risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard
professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one of
the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

"hanson" wrote in message
...
"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"hanson" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote:
Hmmm... snipping untruths is even easier than cutting and pasting.
What a nice, simple way to send messages nobody reads.

"Androcles" wrote
that he, Androcles, is a no-brainer and posted:
Another no brainer.
A Harvard professor's testimony to the government on the effects of
cutting
off the ends of dicks has inflamed a 60-year-long debate over the
practice's
safety and its place in the mental health scheme- prompting a
University
investigation into his work that has garnered nationwide attention.

Chester Bigass, chair of the Genital Health Policy and Epidemiology
Department at the Harvard School of Penile Medicine (HSPM), submitted
written testimony to the National Research Council last year claiming
that
there was no significant link between circumcision and Einstein
dingleberryism, a common but benign form of bigotry particularly
prevalent
in the USA.

Since then, several environmental advocacy groups have questioned the
validity of his research, claiming conflict of interest and outright
deception.

"His conclusion that there is no link is a lie," said Kim Throop, the
head
toxicologist for the Environmental Clipping Group, the
Washington-based
organization that filed the initial ethics complaint with the
National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. "He cites work in his
references, but directly contradicts it in his write-up."

At the heart of the group's claims lies the work of one of Bigass'
doctoral
students, Elise B. Ballsy. Using Bigass' data, Ballsy came up with a
different set of conclusions-she found that circumcision makes the
risk
of dingleberryism five to seven times higher.

Ballsy's work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a
gold
standard for scientific authenticity. Select portions of her study,
however,
have been publicized by the Environmental Clipping Group.

While HSPM is investigating the allegations, several Harvard
professors
have spoken out in support of their colleague.

Byron Allfukian Jr., a Harvard associate clinical professor and one
of the
foremost experts in penal health policy, called the environmental
groups'
claims "ridiculous" and "illogical," saying that Bigass is a world
leader in
the field and that the results of his seven-year study should be
treated
with respect.

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....

"hanson" wrote in message
...
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....

Yep, you've been danced like a puppet on a string.

On Feb 25, 3:59*pm, American wrote:
: On Feb 24, 12:53 pm, wrote:

::: Payback?

::You betcha

: I think you need to define "payback". Your "you betcha"
: reminds me that Palin has made such a name for herself
: and everyone knows her, espcially ****ed off Alaskans
: who now know to whom to direct their anger for their
: problems. But THAT is the topic of another post.

O.K, I'll define payback (without yet also defining
what the spectre for a group of industry-wide trans-
ferrable skill sets might mean to some independent
governing authority):

Asteroid mining can become both a federally funded and pri-
vate enterprise venture. This is where the current balan-
cing effect of earthbound private-industry-to-government
spending ratios will need to retain their integration so
that familiar lines of communication regarding sensitive
technology are not lost to isolationism. *Some will natur-
ally differ on this subject.

There is zero interest in asteroid mining by anyone right now.


Right now, the interest in asteroid mining is widespread.
Just take a look at all of the scientific investigators
listed in the International Astronomical Union Symposium
#229 in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil from August 7-12, 2005,
and you will find hundreds of speakers and participants
from all over the world that are interested in the study
of asteroids and comets. *In addition to these people,
there's a growing number of professional websites that
are dedicated to exploring the asteroids, using all kinds
of exotically propelled spacecraft. Which one is the
most feasible (?) one might ask. It is my belief that we
have to look at earth-to-orbit technology first, and see
where it should go, rather than where it is
presently going.

There is a single spacecraft on route to the asteriods right now (the
Dawn mission).
That mission is for scince and not manufacturing. Maybe something more
than
scince will come out of the science will come out of the Dawn mission,
but not
until we get there and get the science.

::: You obviously are a very practical man but are no
::: scientist. You MUST take risks in order to get gain.

:: Agreed, however, that would depend on how many
:: scientists are involved with the project. (I'm
:: guessing that there are, perhaps a few hundred
:: thousand educated people out there with the in-
:: telligence to pursue a project of this magnitude.

:: Of course, that would also mean that these people
:: have the ability to organize into intelligent
:: groups under varied disciplines.

: Worked during Apollo days.

What worked then works now, too, if done the right way.


There is no proof the the X-generation has the "Right Stuff".

::: That aside the sheer aspect of finding something
::: in the core even if it wasn't water would have
::: scientific benefit. But if it was water, then the
::: payback would be being able to have your own water
::: while you were on Mars which could become the same
::: economically as discovering the next New World as
::: Columbus often gets creditted for. Not next year
::: or even next decade. Century? Yes!

:: Mars is too deep a gravity well for exploration.

: Earth's is bigger and we explore it all the time.

By "we", I'm assuming that the entire world has
access to a single gold deposit? That, IMO, prefers
material wealth over scientific intuition - intuition's
much richer than that.

:: You can accomplish much more without having to
:: contend with powerlaunches by investigating the
:: delta-V's of various asteroids - in proximity to
:: water-bearing moons (like Enceladus or Europa).

: Enceladus is at Saturn at roughy 10 AUs, Europa is
: at Jupiter at roughly 5 AUs, Mars is at 1.5 AUs.
: Now what were you saying about delta-Vs? I know
: these numbers from memory. You go look them up now!
: Then come back to me when you want to play more at
: Solar System astronomy. If there is water on Mars,
: then we should use it!

:: A voyage to Mars, although a romanticist's dream,
:: doesn't do much in the realm of space-based
:: utilitarianism. The environment won't support
:: life for extended periods without constant life-
:: support.

: We would be able to do more with Mars since it has
: much better solar radiation than does the asteriods
: and potential water-bearing moons that orbit gas
: giants, simply because Mars is closer. If the moon
: had an atmosphere, which is doesn't, and had known
: water, which it doesn't, then IT would be the better
: choice because it is closer to us and to the Sun.

Your assuming that, "much better solar radiation"
is more of an answer to generating a global wide
rush into orbit than asteroid mining would be?

Mining asteroids has less utility than being able to convert
ice to water on Mars once we get past 1.5 AUs.

Bringing metal back from the atsreriods may NEVER have actual
human benefit, whereas mining astriods to go to Jupiter and
beyond might have benefit.

It's quite onerous to assume support from those who
think that their golden calves can "buy" them
their freedom from an economic system tending towards
earth-bound globalism, when it is that very kind of
globalism that hamstrings free market economies into
colonial fiefdoms.

Mars is too dead of a planet to provide much of a
future in this solar system - IMO either the Spitzer
Space Telescope, the James Webb Telescope, Chandra,
etc. will discover an earth-size, earth-like planet
much sooner than anyone should be interested in
exploring the Mars for posterity's sake.

Discover an Earth-sized planet where? Not in our Solar System!
And if you think we'll get to another star before we can terraform
and colonize Mars, then I suggest you get back to looking up those
astronomy numbers I've telling you about and check on stellar
distances from our Sun.

:: Sure, once a base has become established,
:: all kinds of studies can be made while in planetary
:: isolation, but what does this really accomplish?

: The roots of colonization. Growing food, etc.

Already been there, done that. (See hydroponics,
the original 13 colonies, job responsibilities, etc.)

I'm talking about growing plants to eat while on Mars!

:: O'neill colonies achieve the same thing without
:: getting caught in the gravity wells of planets,
:: and also permit more earthly orbital type infra-
:: structures to become established for some actual
:: space industry for a space-faring civilization
:: to propogate throughout the solar system.

: No natural water. Mars has water as found by
: several landers. Not standing liquid water but
: in the permafrost. We need to create liquid
: water from the permafrost in a lander's lab the
: next time we send one.

Due to the spectre of new-found earth-like planetary
systems on the horizon, in addition to Mars being
such a gravity trap, we have the possibility of
Mars getting percieved as an entrenched prison
planet, in total dependence upon whatever outside
resources get to provide the escape route via some
'new earth' (post discovery). A prison riot on a
prison planet seems the greater likelihood. Who
WOULD these people be subservient to?

You DO understand that Mars has a weaker gravity than does the Earth,
right?
Mars is on the order of 40% Earth's gravity. Also, we are NOT going to
find an
Earth-like planet in less than 4.4 light years away.

::: You don't think that far ahead, do you? Are you
::: like those GM types that have a 10-day forecast,
::: to which the Japanese found firghtening?

:: You making fun of GM?

: No! I am making fun of GM execs that thought no
: further ahead than the next 10 days!

And the price of gas didn't rise nearly $3/gallon
in the space of 3 months? Are you nuts?

:: Take a look at how the Arabs
:: control the oil, and you'll get an idea of how
:: the auto industry must follow suit.

: It seems that the Japanese and Europeans, that still
: have healthy auto industries, have managed to find
: a way to deal with the Arabs. Stop sounding like a
: victim and especially the Arabs, it doesn't suit you
: or your name.

Since you're describing only "European nations as
the only ones who can "deal with" the Arabs, let
me suggest that it wasn't "Europeans" who created
the engine of prosperity as it exists in it's
present form in the west: it wasn't "Europeans"
that America should emulate by example, esp.
if that technological mindset exists, already
and practically to undermine the useful idiocy
of Hollywood, the America-haters of the Communists,
the anti-religious bigots with their "religious-
free" zones (who position Christianity as a white
man's religion), the tort activists, and the
media whores who're in the business of creating
institutions out of monopoly and nepotism.

You forgot to mention the Japanese in your diatribe.

So now you're telling me that the effect of rising
competition against a settlement on Mars will
be this media's acoutrement to professionally
reported news, esp. as they have become opposed
to these kinds of planetary monopolies?

I never said such a thing!

Shame on you.

For what, your perceived ills of mine which don't exist?

When America's economic and security
interests become so entangled with the rest of
the world's, America's news media will separate
itself from the harloted economy - and that
means TOTAL economic separation - both domestically
and internationally, as it applies against the NWO
scheme of things.

I wouldn't know how to validate your claim and I wonder
if you could.

:: We're sick and
:: tired of high oil prices, but the rest of the
:: world wants to sanction the U.S. as a trading
:: partner, because most of this propoganda being
:: spewed by the ignorant don't know that there is
:: actually an infinite supply - they think in terms
:: their cups being half full, when they're actually
:: half emptied by greedy Arabs and greedy bureaucrats.

: We have had cheap oil for years and the rest of the
: world paid through the nose. I know, I lived in Europe.
: The rest of the world is getting even. That is all.
: It won't last forever.

By "getting even" shouldn't we insinuate that a common
misperception of America is that Americans use mechani-
zation to hit the head of Europeans?

Winning two wars there did that. Even for those that were
our allies, in case you haven't noticed! Are allies during WWI and
WWII
hate us more now than does those that were are enemies. And the
latter isn't crazy about us!

No, no, the
REAL America was hedging their bets against foreign
imperialist economic aggression, based upon the
enemies of free will within intelligent design.

Are you saying that we are a favored nation by intelligent design?

The economic war continues, as the mis-perception shifts
from initiator of progress to observer of progress,
without the least bit of understanding of how and
why that progress was, and is, becoming perceived.

There is a relationship between the time/value of money. Right now
value is lagging, money is being printed and the only healing point
will be time. How long, who knows?

: I remember when the German Mark was worth a quarter.
: Now the euro is worth more than the dollar. You want
: progress? Let's work on reaching parity with the
: euro and then passing them!

The NWO is too entrenched with the financial systems
of the world to create the right kind of "parity"
between "observers" and "initiators". As such, those
in control, or more exactly, the Antichrist, will
cause all, both rich and poor, bond and free...)
which comes from the book of Revelation 13: 16-18,
so IO'm not so sure about you're system of "parity".

I am not talking parity by definition, but I'll bet prayer won't
solve our economic crisis either. We have to work harder than
the Europeans, at least for awhile. Or, come up with something
like digital electronics, the computer, the Internet, etc. Something
else. We are at a technological standstill.

::: Look at GM now. We had BETTER learn to think
::: five years ahead if we plan on being here then!
::: The same goes for 100!

:: The economy of orbital and transorbital technologi
:: an asteroid mining technology venture would depend
:: a massive political and cultural drive in order to
:: erate the market incentive for propogating the tech
:: in order to establish an eternally accessible, earth
:: orbit market - competing directly with the earth-ba
:: mining infrastructure, specifically legislated by an
:: independent authority to decrease the monopolies tha
:: have become entrenched by the interlocking corporate
:: directorships of the New World Order.

: There is no supply and demand problem with metal
: today that warrants the cost of spaceflight to the
: asteroids to bring back metal to earth.

Aside of the exploitation of mineral resources, *that if
there was more of a need for macroeconomic ripples,

"You are allowed to disagree if you believe that the
*Federal Reserve sets the rates for platinum, which it
*would not if the privateers are the ones who set the
*price in the first place. Just because there is "policing"
*or "fear" that greed will run amok on earth is no reason
*to believe that the privateers are a bunch of pirates,
*either. You can arbitrarily set the price of platinum
*as low as you want, so the resource for platinum will
*then just "dry up" without replenishment." All this
*means is that outside of earth orbit, there are advan-
*tages to being closer to where the mining takes place."

When metal meteorites hit the Earth are they ever platinum?

: Sure I like the Dawn mission, but it isn't going
: to be the next quarry for earth-based manufacturing.
: We'll use the asteroids for space-based manufacturing.

There are near earth asteroids that are supposed to be
metal-rich. Their spectrographic signatures identify
them as enstatite achrondites, consisting of enstatite
or magnesium silicate, containing abundant metal and
silicon. There are also literally hundreds of addi-
tional inner belt asteroids that are of the earth-
crossing type (notice that I did not say near-earth
approaching). *The spectrographic signatures of these
asteroids are also effected using advanced
SAR technology.

But nothing cheaper, of what we know that they are, that
we can't get out of the ground on Earth.

:: Doesn't anyone recognize that the NWO is an *evil*
:: entity? (Based upon the current economic climate,
:: I'll bet NO)

: The planet is 7,927 miles wide. Always has been always
: will be. We are 6.6 billion and growing. They say by
: 2050 we'll level off. The point is that the more people
: there are means a shrinking earth that must be dealt
: with. You can't undo global communication and tech-
: nological progress like the internet. It is here
: to stay.

Minted Asteroidal gold is a sure driver for industrial-
izing the solar system, and is not so far off as most
dominionists think:

"An easing of constraints on the use of minted coin,
*set by the privateers, would allow the economic paradigm
*to shift back into the direction of pay-in credit cards,
*as well as easing the national debt, as promisory notes
*reinvest towards financial and technological independence".

Again, has any meteorite ever been found to be made of gold?

(from:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...f99860c0ebd?hl

=en

: Eric

One often mentions the highly elliptical orbit trajectory
delta-V's required for phasing perigee towards the
asteroid's orbital intercept, and the fuel used in the
round trip. *I have uploaded a listing of "Delta-v for
Spacecraft Rendezvous" at:

http://home.comcast.net/~samuel_rans...ndezvous_h.htm

A flyby requires a window that stretches
from a long range, *low delta-V to a short range, high
delta-V, and the cargo vessel window of opportunity exists
to a lesser degree within this window. *Not all rotational
periods are available for an asteroid.

For this reason, the flyby would be the real determinant of
whether or not to mine the asteroid. *However, many of the
larger asteroids ( 1 km.) have low enough rotation periods
that it would not affect the mining operation.

Since we're operating in a very low-g environment, strip
mining would be out of the question. Following up on a
synthetic aperture radar mapping of the asteroid, we
have available data that can be gleaned for specific
metal deposits that are approximately 1mm surface depth.

The cost of getting to the asteriod, plus the cost of extracting the
metal,
and then sending the ore back to earth far outweighs the value of the
ore!

It is my contention that over a specific number of counts,
let's say a few hundred thousand gamma quanta distribu-
tions, the presence of a larger field of width and/or
depth for exploration may be narrowed down to within
5 or ten meters wide and/or deep. More desirably we
can drill down using huge boring devices rather than
strip mining because of the low-g problem. The mining
area is also under the "umbrella" of the cargo vessel,
which protects it from the harmful radiation if on the
bright side of the asteroid. There are already collec-
tion, scanning, screening, and storage devices that
have been designed for these kinds of operations.


Sure, Sci-Fi writers live for this sort of thing. Heck, I
am reading a book, "Cold as Ice", that is discussing
the conversion of the Europan ocean into a shallow
ice crust from a thick crust by melting the underside
of the ice in order to create plants which can carry
on photosynthesis. I call it aquaforming, probably
others do as well. But it is Sci-Fi, dude, just like
mining the asteriods in 2009.

Eric


"You must keep sending work out; you must never
*let a manuscript do nothing but eat its head off
*in a drawer. You send that work out again and
*again, while you're working on another one.
*If you have talent, you will receive some
*measure of success - but only if you persist."

*- Isaac Asimov

ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA....

"Androcles", anagrammically alias "Sol Dancer"
is indeed the "sole dancer" come rain or shine
..... ahahahaha...