Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_1/v15no103.txt

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

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 05:00:02
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #103
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 13 Aug 92       Volume 15 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
  "Our" Lunar Base (was Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
                         beanstalk in Nevada
         Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers) (4 msgs)
                        Capsule location list
         CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP (4 msgs)
              Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
                   Germans drop European Shuttle ?
                               Parsecs?
                   Seeding Mars with life (2 msgs)
                       Space Rally in Houston.
                           SPS Feasability
                   World Space Congress attendees?

    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: 12 Aug 92 16:42:09 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Our" Lunar Base (was Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes:
> When ARE we going to have a lunar base?  Why don't we have one yet?
> Richard.

These are two very good questions, but we SERIOUSLY need a new subject
line for such a discussion.

(I have my own opinions, but, noting the domain in Richard's address,
I'm waiting to see Doug Mohney's reply.)

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        [e-mail]
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     [e-mail]
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player.
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 18:32:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: beanstalk in Nevada
Newsgroups: sci.space

Wouldn't it be possible to have a beanstalk terminus in Nevada just as long as
you had a complimentary terminus an equal distance south of the equator, to
form a dual stalk beanstalk?  As I envision this thing, there would be a single
upper terminus, located directly above the equator, and the lines descending
from it would have a catenary shape.  Of course, it would be difficult enough
doing a beanstalk to a terminus on the equator, but as long as we are dreaming
 ...

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 14:36:08 GMT
From: John Manuel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Are there any bodies in the solar system that have weak enough gravitational
fields (moons, I'd guess) that currently available materials would make a
beanstalk a good idea?

I can't imagine that a beanstalk would really be useful at Phobos, for
example, because it has no atmosphere and a weak field thus making it easy to
land on.

--
John R. Manuel                 Department of Physics, University of Alberta
[e-mail]                 Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA, T6G 2J1
Office: [phone]          (NeXTMail OK)           Fax: [phone]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 14:34:35 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

If not Nevada, where _could_ we put a permanent beanstalk?  Kilimanjaro?  The Andes?
Richard.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:35:39 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)

> Let me rephrase this, what power of thrust would be needed?  Let's
> say I wanted to keep a casino in orbit over Nevada for instance.
>


I would suggest you drop the word orbit. There is no possible orbit
that can put a satellite continuously over Nevada. None. Period.

The only possibilities are solar sails and maglev devices that sit at
least several thousand miles up. They would not be in free fall, they
would be using an energy source to counter the acceleration due to
Earth's gravity at that altitude.

There may be other engineering solutions, such as active structures
built from the surface; or perhaps a GSO beanstalk with cables off to
either side at your latitude and with platforms at the desired
altitude. None of these is likely to be built any time in the near
future. Within our lifetimes? Possibly. But not soon.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:29:00 GMT
From: Dave Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes:
>If not Nevada, where _could_ we put a permanent beanstalk?  Kilimanjaro?  The Andes?
>Richard.

In "The Fountains of Paradise", Arthur Clarke has his "beanstalk", aka
the Orbital Tower, coming down on an island which is almost, but not
quite, Sri Lanka.  He had to move it somewhat south of its actual
position to get the its high peak (known in the West as Adam's Peak) on the
equator.

Clarke also had his tower made of that famous variety of unobtainium,
monomolecular filament.  Assuming he'd done some basic estimates, you
have to figure that's the kind of tensile strength you need for a cable
23,000 miles long.  He also had a captured asteroid stuck out on the
far end as a counter-weight, possibly at a height beyond GEO.

As far as real peaks go, assuming you really need one (what's a few miles
difference worth in a 23Kmile cable?  Get the base above the weather?)
then Cotopaxi & Chimborazo in Ecuador and Mt Kenya seem the only obvious
candidates.
--
||)) Dump the Whatzit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 !  )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones ([e-mail]) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 13:13:40 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Capsule location list

There is also Grissom's Mercury capsule, Liberty Bell 7 (if I
remember my Mercury's) which is still sitting at the bottom of the
Atlantic, a hundred or so miles out from the Cape.

There was at least one proposal to recover it. A few years back Todd
Hawley had an article on how to retrieve it and where it was.

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 02:28:52 GMT
From: "David C. Chorlian" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.college,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.misc,sci.bio.technology,sci.physics,sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David C. Chorlian) writes:
>>
>>
>>In sci.math you write:
>>
>>
>>>     Compare the scientific breakthroughs in Victorian England where
>>>     nothing much of note was happening socially.  Compare breakthroughs
>>>     in the US between 1947 and 1960 when nothing much exciting
>>>     was happening socially.
>>
>>In fact, Victorian England was the site of perhaps the biggest
>>social change in human history--from an agrarian to an industrial
>>society.  The fact that this occured without a great deal of
>>overt violence does not mean that nothing was happening.  And it
>>is not difficult to embed Darwin's course of development in
>>the general context of social and cultural life.  And then
>>what about Duhem's remarks about the difference between
>>French and English physicists--could this be related to the
>>different social contexts from which they came?

>     Certainly there are differences in great agglomerations of
>     people.  I believe below I stated 'other than the obvious
>     effects societies have on their pursuits'.

>     However, I would claim that society remained much the
>     same for a very large timespan in Victorian England.  If
>     insist otherwise, then you would have to insist that there
>     is *always* something happening of note (the cold war was going
I make a specific claim, and I certainly DO NOT have to claim
that something is always happening.
Briefly, 19th Century Britain saw an enormous population increase
massive urbanization, the formation of new and distinctive social
classes, and the beginnings of mass political participation.
Subsequent changes have been less dramatic.
>     on during the other timespan that I mentioned, probably the
>     most dangerous period in human history if you want to take this
>     tack).  As far as Darwin goes, it certainly is not difficult to
>     put his work in social context for the time, especially since
>     his work was used a posteriori by a number of people to justify
More to the point is the influence of modes of thought from
economics.
>     things that they were going to do anyway.  This certainly does
>     not say anything about the a priori significance of social
>     context in the development of the theory (I suspect that
>     the fact that society allowed him a bunch of free time and
>     a free ride was of much more importance).

>>>      Claiming great concurrent undercurrents of history between
>>>      social history and scientific history (other than the obvious
>>>      effects societies have on their pursuits) is a bit far-fetched.
>>>      It strikes me as a bit Marxist, and we all know how successful
>>>      this has been at describing/predicting economic systems.
>>
>>Some parts of Marx's work is quite useful in illuminating the
>>capitalist process of production, even prescient for the time
>>when it was written.  It's stupid to take it dogmatically, and
>>equally stupid to think it can only be taken dogmatically.

>     This certainly was not dogmatic.  It was simply the recognition
>     that the 'great currents' idea seems to be held in common by
>     both Marx and the previous poster.  I believe that the 'great
The implication of your earlier remark is that you see Marx
through the eyes of his most dogmatic proponents, which makes
him appear stupid.  I chided you for this.  I didn't say that
you were dogmatic.
>     currents' idea has pretty much fallen by the wayside in
>     Economics (though there are always holdouts).  As far as the usefulness
>     of other parts of Marx's work, I suppose that is always open
>     to debate, though probably not appropriate here.

>     One final comment:  humans are very good at finding patterns,
>     even when they do not exist.


The patterns exist, the question is of their significance.

>                                dale bass
>--
>C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>University of Virginia
>Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]

David B. Chorlian
Neurodynamics Lab,  SUNY/HSCB

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 14:10:03 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.college,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.misc,sci.bio.technology,sci.physics,sci.space

What *is* your definition of a pattern?
This seems crucial to your debate.
Richard.

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:07:56 GMT
From: Cameron Randale Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.college,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.misc,sci.bio.technology,sci.physics,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David C. Chorlian) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David C. Chorlian) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>In sci.math you write:
>>>
>>>
>>>>     Compare the scientific breakthroughs in Victorian England where
>>>>     nothing much of note was happening socially.  Compare breakthroughs
>>>>     in the US between 1947 and 1960 when nothing much exciting
>>>>     was happening socially.
>>>
>>>In fact, Victorian England was the site of perhaps the biggest
>>>social change in human history--from an agrarian to an industrial
>>>society.  The fact that this occured without a great deal of
>>>overt violence does not mean that nothing was happening.  And it
>>>is not difficult to embed Darwin's course of development in
>>>the general context of social and cultural life.  And then
>>>what about Duhem's remarks about the difference between
>>>French and English physicists--could this be related to the
>>>different social contexts from which they came?
>
>>     Certainly there are differences in great agglomerations of
>>     people.  I believe below I stated 'other than the obvious
>>     effects societies have on their pursuits'.
>
>>     However, I would claim that society remained much the
>>     same for a very large timespan in Victorian England.  If
>>     insist otherwise, then you would have to insist that there
>>     is *always* something happening of note (the cold war was going
>I make a specific claim, and I certainly DO NOT have to claim
>that something is always happening.
>Briefly, 19th Century Britain saw an enormous population increase
>massive urbanization, the formation of new and distinctive social
>classes, and the beginnings of mass political participation.
>Subsequent changes have been less dramatic.

     Then briefly tell me how this is reflected in, say, the development
     of Maxwell's equations in a way that it was not reflected in,
     say, the development of Weber's equations or Gauss's law.

     Be brief.

>>>>      Claiming great concurrent undercurrents of history between
>>>>      social history and scientific history (other than the obvious
>>>>      effects societies have on their pursuits) is a bit far-fetched.
>>>>      It strikes me as a bit Marxist, and we all know how successful
>>>>      this has been at describing/predicting economic systems.
>>>
>>>Some parts of Marx's work is quite useful in illuminating the
>>>capitalist process of production, even prescient for the time
>>>when it was written.  It's stupid to take it dogmatically, and
>>>equally stupid to think it can only be taken dogmatically.
>
>>     This certainly was not dogmatic.  It was simply the recognition
>>     that the 'great currents' idea seems to be held in common by
>>     both Marx and the previous poster.  I believe that the 'great
>The implication of your earlier remark is that you see Marx
>through the eyes of his most dogmatic proponents, which makes
>him appear stupid.  I chided you for this.  I didn't say that
>you were dogmatic.

     No, your assumption and knee-jerk reaction to the word 'Marxist'
     is what did this.  I question the 'inevitable progression' of
     economic systems that was the basis of Marx's work and coloured
     everything he did.

>>     Economics (though there are always holdouts).  As far as the usefulness
>>     of other parts of Marx's work, I suppose that is always open
>>     to debate, though probably not appropriate here.
>
>>     One final comment:  humans are very good at finding patterns,
>>     even when they do not exist.
>
>The patterns exist, the question is of their significance.

     Insofar as they are created, they exist.

                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                           [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            [phone]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 18:46:33 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE DISCUSSION GROUP
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.college,talk.religion.misc,talk.origins,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.misc,sci.bio.technology,sci.physics,sci.space

People, I've read most of this argument several times now,
and I'm getting a little tired of the constant revision.
Would someone make a definitive summary, with paragraph
and line numbers for reference?  It's just a waste of
space and time as it is.
Richard.

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 16:38:46 GMT
From: Garry Holmen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Newsgroups: sci.space

Reading the subject header of this posting gave me a great idea....

Why don't we just strap the shuttle onto the Energia and throw the soyuz into
the shuttle's cargo bay. This takes care of heavy lift capability, cheap
escape vehicles and low G returns of space hardware. I'm sure we can get
that fellow from South Africa to supply the propellent for the whole project
if we donate the raw sugar, salt peter and a large candle.

The total price for this scheme would be :

    Energia        2 pairs 501 jeans and Rolling stones CD
            ( equivalent to 10,000,000 rubles in the black market)

    Shuttle        1 Billion US $. (No red tag special here....)

    Soyuz        Macdonald franchise for St. Petersburg.

for a grand total of     1 billion plus spare change.
      plus tax        3 billion.

(PS.... I think Allen can get all this for about 200M if we just let him
work with the numbers for awhile.)

As one can see this solves all the space problems that we currently have....
Next stop Alpha-Centuri...... All aboard.

8^)

Garry
================================================================================What we're in space????

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:08:46 GMT
From: Markus Kuhn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Germans drop European Shuttle ?
Newsgroups: sci.space

<[e-mail]> writes:

>Whilst skimming thru the TV channels last week, I caught sight of the
>German research minister, Riesenhuber, saying that Hermes was 'unacceptable'
>(not exact translation) to the German government in either manned or unmanned
>form.

The chances that Germany will further support development of an european
manned space system are very low at the moment. The German reunification
has been and is still VERY expensive (you can't remove the consequences of
40 years socialistic economy in a few months :-) and so several high cost/
low spin off projects like Hermes and the Eurofighter 90 have been shut down
or will be.

Markus

--
Markus Kuhn, Computer Science student -=-=- University of Erlangen, Germany
Internet: [e-mail]  |  X.500 entry available
------------------ ISO?  Nicht immer. Aber immer fter! -------------------

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:57:00 GMT
From: "Robert S. Hill" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parsecs?
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Arlin B. Collins) writes...
 [e-mail] (Richard Martin) writes:
>>|> Please forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a parsec?
>>|> Richard.
> A star with a parallax of 'p' arc seconds is at a distance
> 'd' parsecs, given by  d=1/p (accurate up to distances of about 30pc).
> One parsec equals  30.857x10**12 km, 206265 astronomical units, and
> 3.2616 light-years.

Fun facts:  206265 is also the number of arcsec in a radian
            1 km/sec = approx. 1 parsec/million years

Robert S. Hill
[e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 14:25:37 GMT
From: Richard Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: [e-mail] (David Knapp)
>-Subject: Re: Seeding Mars with life
>-Date: 11 Aug 92 15:38:58 GMT
>-Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
>-In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>->Even the "vent" organisms are exploiting the chemical gradient set up
>->by photosynthesis (they oxidize the reduced chemicals coming out of the
>->vents), and are therefore not completely geothermally powered.
>
>-The do not comsume photosythesized materials. (at least according to National
>-Geographic...)
>
>I think the point Paul's trying to make is that the organisms take advantage
>of oxidizing chemicals (perhaps oxygen among them) produced by photosynthetic
>life. I don't know enough on the subject to confirm or deny that. I have
>read that some bacteria get their energy by some chemical change in iron
>compounds, and that others get it by converting one sulfur compound to another,
>and it would be helpful if Paul would comment on whether both of these are
>tied in with compounds produced by photosynthesis.
>John Roberts
>[e-mail]
Please forgive me if I make any glaring errors, but I have read about a type
of bacteria which carries out anaerobic respiration.  I think it is more
dependent on sulphur than on Carbon, and I don't think it makes any complex
hydrocarbons.  These organisms developed on Earth, but were superseded by
photosynthetic species.  They still exist, but I'm not sure where.
(What a mess of half-remembered rumours--Mrs. Bartle would kill me!)
Richard.

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 14:16:46 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeding Mars with life
Newsgroups: sci.space

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

|> >|> You don't know that, and, in fact, nobody else does either. There is
|> >|> strong evidence that there exists abundant water supplies within the
|> >|> Martian regolith.
|> >
|> >There exists abundant water of hydration, and ice, probably.  But *not*
|> >liquid water anywhere near the surface.  The pressure is simply too low.
|>
|> I contend that the subsurface of Mars is as much on Mars as the surface is
|> and that if water exists there in liquid form, then liquid water exists on
|> Mars, which you said was impossible.


Oh, good grief.  I said "on Mars".  Not "in Mars".


|> >Life exists at depth on earth only because it also exists at the surface.
|>
|> I think you've suggested a cause an effect that most biologists would
|> disagree with.

Name one?



|> >Soil organisms decompose organic compounds produced by photosynthesis.
|>
|> Photosynthesis isn't required for all life. Not all life forms consume
|> products of photosynthesis. Deep ocean vent tube worms are one example.
|>
|> >Deep organisms that eat oil run on fossil photosynthetic energy.
|> >Even the "vent" organisms are exploiting the chemical gradient set up
|> >by photosynthesis (they oxidize the reduced chemicals coming out of the
|> >vents), and are therefore not completely geothermally powered.
|>
|> The do not comsume photosythesized materials. (at least according to National
|> Geographic...)


Perhaps you had better get your biological information from
a different source, then.  Oxygen is a photosynthesized material,
you know.  If all photosynthesizing organisms on Earth were
to be killed, the tube worms would die out when the
atmosphere's oxygen was depleted (which would take a few million years)
or when the oceans became anoxic.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 09:43:00 GMT
From: University Space Society <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Rally in Houston.
Newsgroups: sci.space

The following is the text of a flyer given to me by a friend involved in
organizing the event.  I was asked to post this as a favor.  I did not
write the flyer, but I do expect to attend the rally.  This kind of
effort could help convince political leaders that there are people
who care about space as an issue.  A large turnout would be all the
better and could do lots for our cause. A small turnout could actually
hurt.

If there is any way at all that you can be there. BE THERE!!!!!

             Ad Astra per demonstrating in Houston,

             Alvin Carley

============================================================================


                      ************************************
                      ******                        ******
                      ******  SPACE FRONTIER RALLY  ******
                      ******                        ******
                      ************************************

Where:    In Houston at the Republican National Convention Rally /
          Demonstration Site, Kirby Drive at Murworth, across from
          the Astrodome.  Take Kirby exit from South Loop 610,
          proceed north to Murworth.

When:     Sunday, 16 August 1992 from 3 pm to 7 pm
          Monday, 17 August 1992,     noon to 2 pm

What:     A Citizen's Rally in support of America
          opening the space frontier NOW!

                    +----------------------------------------+
                    |  A public event brought to you by the  |
                    |       Space Frontier Foundation        |
                    +----------------------------------------+

Dedicated to opening the space frontier for everyone.

Come and bring the whole family.  Bring a sign to show your support
for our nation's space enterprise.

Learn about key space projects that can help open the space frontier... today.
Show the Republican delegates that Houston (and America) cares about space.

             For more information, please call [phone].

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 17:15:41 GMT
From: Paul Dietz <[e-mail]>
Subject: SPS Feasability
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

|> I've never seen 'multiple-orders-of-magnitude' projected improvements
|> in my (limited) studies.  And isn't it reasonable to assume that when working
|> with a new technology, you will find greater marginal improvements than
|> within contemporary technologies that have been around for a while?

Many things have to be done many orders of magnitude more cheaply
than can be done at present.  For terrestrial-launched systems,
launch costs have to come down about by a factor of nearly 1000.  The cost
of processing lunar materials has to come down enormously, if you
go that route (what's the cost per man hour of a lunar base using
existing technology?  More than the cost on Freedom).  In general,
space activities have to be scaled up by multiple orders of magnitude.
One microwave SPS has more mass than everything ever put into orbit combined.


|> Didn't I once read that solar-power-cells (to pick a competitor off the
|> top of my head) were never expected to be more than ~40% efficient?
|> And didn't I see Dennis post a bit about current developments in solar
|> cells, with the best efficiency listed as 37%, and lots down in the 20%+
|> range?  This seems to suggest to me that at least one, if not many,
|> competing technologies have, indeed, reached the upper part of their
|> 'learning' curves.

You are in error: "efficiency" is not the correct figure of merit
for terrestrial PV cells, "cost per peak watt installed" is.  The
cost per watt of PV cells has over time declined quite rapidly,
and is not near any fundamental limit.  It has declined much more rapidly,
in fact, than the cost of launching astronauts into space.  This
is not surprising, since technologies that can be worked on on a
fairly small scale typically advance more rapidly -- a fact that also
does not bode well for macroengineering schemes.


|> Consider oil, for example, where the reserves in many places are
|> well into the second, and working on the third level of extraction.
|> (For oil, level 1 is when it comes out the ground for you.  Level 2
|> is when you must pump it.  Level 3 is when you have to force water or
|> mud down, to get any oil up.)

But, in fact, it is getting cheaper to produce oil, because
of improved reservoir modeling, horizontal drilling, and so on.
In any case, the cost of oil is dominated by how much OPEC thinks
it can charge without stimulating alternatives.  The cost of
production in the Saudi Arabia is less than $3/barrel.

    Paul F. Dietz
    [e-mail]

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

Date: 12 Aug 92 17:17:14 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: World Space Congress attendees?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Okay, who's going to the World Space Congress and related festivities
(example: Carl Sagan's party at the Hard Rock Cafe for release of the
Voyager record on CD)?

For the unhip, it's in Washington, DC, USA, from 28 August to 5
September.

"Read my lips, Hal:         Bill Higgins
Open the Pod Bay doors!"    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                            Bitnet:     [e-mail]
                            SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS
                            Internet:  [e-mail]

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 103
------------------------------