Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_3/V16NO395.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 30KB

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 05:17:10
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #395
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 31 Mar 93       Volume 16 : Issue 395

Today's Topics:
                       Abyss: breathing fluids
                Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
                       Commercial point of view
   First Mission  of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
            Gemini 8 (was Re: Artificial Gravity) (3 msgs)
                     John Pike on SSRT prospects
                       Jules Verne Gun (2 msgs)
                  Metric conversion sheet request!!
                  Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
           the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
       Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus) (2 msgs)
                         Why is Venus so bad?

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 20:44:31 EST
From: Callec Dradja <[e-mail]>
Subject: Abyss: breathing fluids
Newsgroups: sci.space

I am a bit nervous about posting this beacause it is begining to
stray fron the topic of space but then again that doesn't seem to
stop alot of other people. :-)

With all of this talk about breathing at high pressures, I began
to think about the movie Abyss. If you remember, in that movie one
of the characters dove to great depths by wearing a suit that used
a fluid that carries oxegen as opposed to some sort of gas. Now I
have heard that mice can breath this fluid but for some reason, humans
are unable to. Does anyone know more details about this?

Gregson Vaux


********************************************************************
* If all we do is live and die,           *  Gregson Vaux          *
* then tell me about the birds that fly.  *  Penn State University *
* If all we did was die and live,         *  Semitics & English    *
* would springtime be there to forgive?   *  [e-mail]  *
********************************************************************

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 23:11:21 GMT
From: Josh Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Budget Astronaut (was: Idle Question)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] writes:

>B) Would it be legally possible for some rich soul to book a Scout
>flight for a couple of unmanned tests, then the final manned flight?
>Would a "man rating" of the Scout stand in the way?

>C) Is this just idle speculation, or the most expensive way I've
>ever heard of to commit suicide?

There has been some interesting discussion on just how small a can you could
fit someone in, which is an interesting subject in itself.  However, I must
point out that the Russians would be more than happy to sell you a trip to
Mir for less than the cost of reserving a Pegasus or Scout.  You get trained,
a less uncomfortable seat and much more time on orbit and you don't have to
pay for any new hardware.  I would't say that crawling into a Scout fairing and
pushing the button is suicide, but it does seem a little melodramatic.



--
Josh Hopkins                                          [e-mail]
          "Tout ce qu'un homme est capable d'imaginer, d'autres hommes
                     seront capable de la realiser"
             -Jules Verne

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 23:24:40 GMT
From: Nick Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Commercial point of view
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] (Greg Moore) writes:

>If according to a previous post Delta launches with
>a ground crew (year-round) of 320, there may not be a large
>improvement here.  The Russian advantage seems to be that
>they mass-produce their rockets.  We could do that as well.

If they can do 320, we need 32 (or less; haven't checked the
exchange rate recently). If we want to pay our engineers & techs
ten times as much, they have to produce ten times as much value.
(This does in fact happen in most of the rest of our economy, but
not in rocketry).

>>[industries made possible or vastly larger by native materials
>>processing]
>it is something to consider, but not
>in the near immediate future.

Far be it from me to offend the inspired legions supporting the
most popular space project in years, but  don't be so sure about what
comes before what.  Profitable native materials use requires launch
cost reductions far more modest than those promised by many in the SSTO
camp.  Furthermore, the promised launch cost reductions rely heavily
on a vast projected volume of SSTO launches. This can only occur if
SSTO opens new markets, and the largest markets ($10's of billions
per year) are those made possible by processing of native materials,
instead of hauling everything up from earth.

Nevertheless, SSTO is quite valuable in its own right and should be
targeted towards the largest current markets, satellites destined for
Clarke and polar orbits.  Smaller markets like astronauts, or more
speculative markets like manufacturing with native materials, should
be secondary considerations.  Cf. my post on "rocket clones"
for elaboration on this.

SSTO and native materials are thus financially synergistic.
Politically, since neither SSTO nor native materials garner even a
tiny fraction of NASA funding, it's hardly a case of one vs. the other.

>>[reentry access for smuggling, blockade running, etc.]
>[Horrors!]

Well, the main reason for mentioning this is to point out that
there are more things in heaven & earth than are dreamt of
by NASA contractor wannabes studying "space resources".
A businessman has to consider all the possibilities, not just the
desirable or politically popular ones. Plans for smuggling  or stopping
smuggling do not make NASA look good, and as a result you won't see
smuggling on any "space resources" studies, or in NASA/NSS PR glossies.
Nevertheless, the military has been smuggling information, from  spysat
photos via film capsule to propaganda via comsat, for years.
We ain't  seen nothin' yet; wait until materials in orbit cost a few
cents a kilo.  This aspect of space has and will play a major role;
any serious thinking about our future in space has to consider
this issue, whether we like it or not.

> could you
>give an ide of what sort of time-frame you're talking here?

Timeframes are just stifling religious ritual.  Think tech
constraints, not timeframes.  How much R&D to get automated long-lag
ice extraction plants?  (Think of them as tiny auto-maintained sewage
treatment plants).  When will electric upper stages and/or solar thermal
rockets be available, or alternately how much would it cost to R&D them
privately?  Where are the high-quality ores and what equipment is needed
to extract them? This is why making fixed plans is so silly; discoveries
or tech advances can turn them on their head tommorrow.  The best
planning is to try and cover many diverse possibilities, stir 'em
around and let 'em stew, and see what sorts of profitable things pop out.
Usually not what we'd expect, and hardly ever what some hubristic
bureaucrats have planned for us.

A rule of thumb I'm toying with: when the chemical engineers outnumber
physicists, and serious military officers and businessmen outnumber
NASA officials and space fans in the native materials world, it'll be
time for serious private investment.  Right now there is a tremendous
oversupply of abstract physics calculations and and bureaucrats dreaming
of glorious pork, and a dearth of practical equipment design and financial
analysis.

>[climate mods]
>       Ack, Id want to see a HELL of a lot more research
>on upper atmosphere chemistry before we started doing this.
>I'm talking 50 years or so...

The ozone might be gone by then.  The ethane fix was proposed
in _Science_ by some of the most respected climatologists in
the field (eg Turco from JPL).  Their plan uses airplanes and
would cost in the $10's of billions; a somewhat smaller investment
can make native materials very cheap for this and many other
purposes.  Certainly this is also in the speculative high-risk
category, right along with SPS (except the equipment needed is
much less than for SPS, thus much less up-front investment).

The general point is that there are a large number of big markets
opened up by native materials.  Many of them, like this one
and various instantiations of SPS, are quite financially riskly.
Some of them are on firmer ground (eg the large number of
micrograv processes, such as metal alloys that separate on earth, that
are affordable at $.10-$100/kg raw materials costs but out
of the question at $1,000's/kg).  The risks average out, so native
materials in general (not specific proposals, yet, too little
detail) are almost a sure thing.


--
Nick Szabo                     [e-mail]

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 23:26:00 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: First Mission  of the Small Expendable Deployer System SUCCESS!
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>>Just a short note to let everyone know that the first deployment of a
>>20 kilometer tether by the Small Expendable Deployer System (SEDS) was a
>>100 % success!!!!
>
>Congrats Dennis! I'm glad to see this work.
>
>>As Allen would love to say that this is not typical and I would agree. It
>>is not typical that NASA is left alone to do its job!
>
>Am I being baited here? I guess I better respond.
>
>Sorry Dennis. For most projects NASA gets what they want but still
>generally run over and take longer. Examples:
>
>1. ASRM (also known as the "Jamie Lee Whitten Memorial Pork Delivery
>   System). This project ALWAYS gets as much or more than they ask for.
>   There has never been any micromanagement by Congress yet the cost
>   has more than doubled and schedule slipped by 4 years.
>

Remember that NASA did not want this and left it out of the budget and
still it was crammed down their throats by congress.  Also I think you
should look at the numbers on the budget. I don't think they always got
what they wanted. Maybe Wales would be kind enough to post on this.


>2. Extended duration shuttle toilet. Overran by over 300% yet they
>   got all the funds they asked for.
>

No argument there.

>3. Advanced turbopumps. Overrun by over 500% yet they got not only all
>   the funds but even got the scope of the project reduced.

>
I don't think so on this one. From what I remember, the budget has always
been underfunded from what the folks here at MSFC asked for. The technology
test bed here has been back up and running for about three years now and they
have tested a lot of hardware on the stands, up to and including full power
full duration SSME firings. They have never been given the money that
is necessary to put these into production or even complete the test program.

>4. A GAO study found that over half of the NASA contracts overrun by
>   a significant amount.
>

I wonder how that would work out if you restricted it to non micromanaged
contracts.  Also it would be instructive to see how much other government
operations such as |HUD and others overrunn as a percentage of contracts.

>5. According to the NASA cost model, the Wake Shield Facility should
>   cost $93M to build (before overruns). A private company is building
>   the exact same thing for $11M.
>

All depends on how you verify the work. It is funny that I am seeing a lot
of last minute hassles by a certain NASA center on one of my payloads.
The "commercial" procurement allowed us to drop some of the more stupid
rules on how to put together hardware. Well at the last minute Center X is
going orbital on our engineering. All of this work will not be charged
against our "commercial" contract but against Shuttle operations. I wonder
how often this happens and how this impacts the shuttle program as a
whole.

>6. The NASA cost model says that SpaceHab should cost $1.13 billion to
>   build. A private company is building it for $153 million.
>

Funny that it is this very facility that I am talking about above. IUt is
funny how money and chargers can be pushed around to make one or another
organization look good or bad depending on how the political wind is blowing.


>These are all cases where Congress didn't interfere and gave NASA everything
>it asked for (sometimes even more). That they could not be executed on time
>or on cost indicate a serious cultural problem within the organization.
>

I agree that there are times where NASA completly and totally screws up. We
all do, even Allen BUT it is also true that the likelyhood of coming in
on time and under budget is drastically reduced by the interference by
Congress.

>Now, I'm not saying Congress is blameless. But as long as we continue to use
>Congress as a skapegoat the real problems will never be fixed.
>
>  Allen

I am not saying NASA is blameless. In the commercial world, when a company
screws up, it goes to the bottom line and in many cases the company
ceases to exist. I have seen it happen many many times. When NASA screws up
it is blamed and all kinds of fix it ideas are offered.  It is starting to
be my opinion that the success or failure of a program or a company is
directly related to the competence of the personnel on the project.  Many
many modesl have been used in successful and in uncessful projects.
Many times the same model is used and leads to dramatically different
results. Case in point is the success of MacDac in the Delta program and
in the DC program. The same company using the same management style and
approach has screwed the C-17 so bad it may never be fixed and has
allowed a multi-hundred billion dollar overrun in its work on the
space station. People and expertise is what counts not methodologies and
organizational paridgms.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 23:18:51 GMT
From: Tom A Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gemini 8 (was Re: Artificial Gravity)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michelson) writes:
>
>The mission was terminated precisely because Armstrong and Scott had used the
>re-entry thrusters to stabilize the spacecraft.  Could they have solved
>the problem simply by resetting the onboard computer and then gone on with the
>mission?

If you are suggesting that shutting everything off and restarting it would
have solved the problem, then it seems not.  After re-stabilizing, they
experimented with the OAMS, trying this set of thrusters, then another,
until they had determined exactly which thruster was the stuck one.  Note
that the thruster was still stuck, even after the OAMS was shut off then on.

>I'm simply going to have to acquire some good technical references for the
>Gemini spacecraft.  Suggestions?

My older brother sent away for the presskit for that flight.  It was a
*big* binder with lots of stuff.

tombaker

P.S. BTW, I would have loved for them to continue the mission.  But the
    Reentry Control System (RCS) fuel levels were down below a level,
    at which point all NASA's rule books demanded an abort.

    I suppose
    a good argument would be that, if *another* thruster decided to
    get stuck, then they would not have enough RCS fuel to restabilize
    and then come down safely.  (I don't know if that is true; is it,
    anyone?)

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 23:05:25 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gemini 8 (was Re: Artificial Gravity)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>That was Neil Armstrong.  I've always thought that this incident, and
>his save, was one of the main reasons for picking him to command
>Apollo 11.  Dave Scott, who was there on the Gemini mission, told me
>the whole story of this incident one day.

That's one story I would like to hear!! (hint, hint!)

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 01:14:10 GMT
From: Dave Michelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gemini 8 (was Re: Artificial Gravity)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom A Baker) writes:
>
>If you are suggesting that shutting everything off and restarting it would
>have solved the problem, then it seems not.  After re-stabilizing, they
>experimented with the OAMS, trying this set of thrusters, then another,
>until they had determined exactly which thruster was the stuck one.  Note
>that the thruster was still stuck, even after the OAMS was shut off then on.

I'm asking not suggesting.  There's a big difference. :-)

It sounds like you've seen some detailed accounts of what happened after
Armstrong and Scott undocked.  Where can I find such stuff?  I've read the
usual accounts but they're rather short on detail.

BTW, my understanding was that mission rules stated that *any* use of the
re-entry thrusters meant that the mission was over.  No stipulation of
how much fuel had been used or was left over...

---
Dave Michelson                             University of British Columbia
[e-mail]                                  Antenna Laboratory

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 22:48:46 GMT
From: "Brian J. Glass" <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Pike on SSRT prospects
Newsgroups: sci.space

During the lunch break of a seminar last week at American University, I
wandered up to John Pike, the Director of the Space Policy Project of the
Federation of American Scientists [and an occasional NASA critic].

I asked him his opinion of SSRT program funding anywhere if DCX tests
are successful this summer.  He said flatly,"There will be no new launchers
during the Clinton administration."  Since (among other credentials in his
talk's introduction) Pike was described as the space policy adviser to the
Mondale and Dukakis campaigns, I assume that his opinions don't differ
widely from those extant in the new administration.

Oh well...

Brian Glass
[e-mail]
I barely speak for myself, let alone NASA...

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 21:33:20 GMT
From: Eric H Seale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jules Verne Gun
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>...There has been some previous work on using guns
>to launch payloads to reach EXTREME altitudes (but not orbit) using
>guns and they got to go over 100 km. The work was done by the
>Canadians and they still have the gun....

The Iraqi's were working on one too (of course, they weren't trying to
get altitude...).  Fortunately, they don't have THEIR gun anymore.

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

Date: 31 Mar 93 00:23:36 GMT
From: INNES MATTHEW <[e-mail]>
Subject: Jules Verne Gun
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eric H Seale) writes:
>[e-mail] (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes:
>>...There has been some previous work on using guns
>>to launch payloads to reach EXTREME altitudes (but not orbit) using
>>guns and they got to go over 100 km. The work was done by the
>>Canadians and they still have the gun....
>
>The Iraqi's were working on one too (of course, they weren't trying to
>get altitude...).  Fortunately, they don't have THEIR gun anymore.

Actually, as I understand it, they were funding the work of Gerald Bull.
This is the same man responsible for the Canadian program, who simply moved
on to Iraq when the Canadians cut off his funding.  He was assassinated in
Brussels a year or two back; rumour has it that the Mossad (Israeli espionage
agency) was responsible.  (I'm starting to sound like McElwrae... )

--
                        Matt Innes
                        <[e-mail]>

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

Date: 30 Mar 1993 20:39:33 GMT
From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metric conversion sheet request!!
Newsgroups: sci.space

>> Can someone post a short sheet on Metric to English and reverse...
>> Yard to Meter and such.. Just for some of us who are still into feet...

> You can find these conversions inside the covers of any recent Physics
> or Chemistry text books.

You may also try some dictionaries (it may seem odd but some
dictionaries do carry conversion tables for metric and English
systems). Gosh... Why bother posting that since it is so easy to find this
info somewhere else...

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 19:14:35 GMT
From: Dennis Newkirk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Status of U.S./Soviet Cooperation
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>In article <1p5iav$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Eric Miller) writes:
>
>>It is my impression that it is absolutely criminal that we are not
>>taking advantage of the obvious economic advantages to the U.S. of
>>contracting out many of our space services to the former Soviets [...]
>
>Is it?  Think about the situation for a moment; the former Soviet space
>industry has been fractured into 15 separate independent pieces.  Several
>of the resulting nations are either at war with or hostile towards other
>former republics.  Some industrial facilities formerly devoted to space
>applications are now making toaster ovens.  Launch complex employees are
>looting facilities of everything movable.  If you were the U.S. government
>or a corporation, how fast would you rush to invest in this situation?

Only 2 peices of the 15 really need to work for almost any project,
Russia and Kazakstan and that's not needed if you can launch from
Plestesk. Making toasters can be just as good as bad, maybe the profits
go to fund the companies rocket R&D? Looting has apparently not affected
the manned space program and unmanned missions are still being launched.
There have been cutbacks, but can you say NASA has not had major cutbacks
lately? Much of what we are seeing now in Russian space 'instabilities'
was just sheilded by censorship in the past. The myth of the slow
but reliable Soviet space 'tortise' has been reveiled. Their space
efforts have been just as prone to cuts, military-civilian needs fights,
political games, and other blunders as NASA's past and perhaps more so.

>There are a number of good reasons to work with the Soviets in space, but
>until the situation stabilizes over there, I seriously doubt any sane
>Western organization or government is going to put signifigant money into
>any joint projects.

Probably Russians or Ukranians not Soviets. Significant money is subjective,
major money to Russia is practicially insignificant in western aerospace
terms. The fact that the ESA and Japanese are considering joining the Mir 2
project, and NASA's consideration to use Mir instead of building Freedom
is indicator enough that Russian cooperation is now taken seriously. As
long as Russia can hold somewhat together, and the economics of supporting
foreign industry to some degree make sense, Russia should be considered.

In answer to the original post, one of the 2 cosmonauts training in
Houston will be chosen soon for a shuttle flight. A NASA astronaut
will be launched to Mir for a 3 month mission around March 1995. A NASA
shuttle will dock to Mir around July 1995 delivering some cargo and
retreiving the NASA astronaut and maybe the Russian crew in exchange
for a new Russian crew. NASA is considering using Mir in its redesign
of the Freedom program. ESA has been studying cooperation with Russia
and has traded plans for Mir 2 and Columbus free flyer for review.
Many companies have invested in Russian aerospace in some way.
The British are still studying using a Russian Antonov transport to launch
some kind of rocket, Motorola has agreed to use 3 Protons to launch
some Iridium satellites and INMARSAT is launching a satellite on a Proton.
The US Department of Defense has flown an experiment on Russian
spacecraft, NASA is flying experiments on the MARS 94 probes, Russian
communications satellites are forming the backbone of a new commercial
Pacific communications system and more satellites are on order, etc....

Dennis Newkirk ([e-mail])
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

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

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1993 22:19:58 GMT
From: James Davis Nicoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: the call to space (was Re: Clueless Szaboisms )
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1p5rar$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>Also, given that japan has no indigenous sources of radioactives,
>what is the economic difference for japan to import oil,  versus
>radioactives,  of which only a few countries produce.  I believe only
>the US,  France and The soviets produce nuclear fuels.  Maybe india
>does on a small scale.

    According tothe fellow  I just talked to at the Atomic Energy
Control Board, Canada exported  twenty-three thousand  tonnes of  uranium
last year.  I don't think Canada needs US, French  or post-Soviet reactor
fuels.

    Boy,that figure seems high. I  wonder who's  buying it?

                            James Nicoll

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

Date: 30 Mar 93 16:34:15 GMT
From: Charles Lindsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>What does CO2 have to do with the oxygen content of Venus's crust?
>Most of the oxygen on the inner planets is in the form of silicates,
>mostly Mg-Fe silicates in the mantles.  The very top of Venus is
>likely somewhat reduced compared to Earth, as there has been no
>biological carbon pump to maintain an oxidation gradient across the
>lithosphere, but there is still plenty of oxygen in the rocks.

>CO2 is not going to be sucked out of the atmosphere by reaction with
>oxygen-poor materials.  Instead, it reacts with silicates to make
>carbonates and silica (or, with oxides to make carbonates).

There is a rather basic (pun noted) matter of chemistry that has not
yet been addressed in these discussions. The atmosphere of Venus is
very acidic (carbonic acid and sulphuric/sulphurous acid, or CO2 and
SO2 if you leave the water out). After terraforming you need a more or
less neutral atmosphere if humans are to breathe it.

To get rid of acids you need bases (i.e. metallic oxides) to combine
with the acids.  Now is there any reason to suppose that the rocks on
the ground will be basic? Or, put it anpother way given that all the
acid presumably came out of the ground in the first place, is there
some fundamental law of nature which says that, in a brand new planet,
the acids and bases should just about cancel each other out. It is so
now on the surface of the earth, but is that just a fluke?

And even if the primordial Venus was neutral, how will the removal of a
lot of hydrogen have affected the balance in the meantime?


--
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]                            Janet:    [e-mail]
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl

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

Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 01:49:11 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Timid Terraformers (was Re: How to cool Venus)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Lindsey) writes:

> To get rid of acids you need bases (i.e. metallic oxides) to combine
> with the acids.  Now is there any reason to suppose that the rocks on
> the ground will be basic?

Yes.  Silicates are naturally slightly basic (or, more precisely, they
tend to buffer decreases in pH).  The typical reaction is something like

    CaSiO3 + H2SO4 -->  CaSO4 + H2O + SiO2

This type of reaction reaction (with carbonic acid in water rather
than sulfuric acid) is a fundmental weathering process on Earth which
is thought to recycle CO2 back into the oceans and then into
sediments.

I understand that olivine (magnesium/iron silicates) is the most
easily dissolved by sulfuric acid, and have been proposed as a cheap
reagent to neutralize industrial sulfuric acid waste.

The reaction of silica with quicklime (CaO) shows silica neutralizing
a strong base, forming a silicate.  This kind of reaction occurs in
the setting of concrete.

    Paul

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

Date: 30 Mar 1993 21:49:45 GMT
From: Doug Mohney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is Venus so bad?
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.scuba

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David (Duis) Story) writes:

>The latest world record was a dive to ~1100m done by a French
>commercial diving company.  This was reported in the latest UHMS
>Pressure.

Can you post more information?  They probably had to do some very perverse
things to keep people alive.



    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it?
  -- >                  [e-mail]                        < --

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 395
------------------------------