Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING
In a message dated 10/30/2002 7:58:48 AM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You aren’t going to want any kind of flutes or anything on the shaft of this thing. Expect it to get clogged real fast. Glass smooth stainless 4130, or smoother is preferable. Polish it with newspaper, and then polish it again with RainX. An old torpedo tube would work better as it can probably be had in some form or another off the shelf. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 We still must come up with a way to shed meltwater and sludge at the front of the nose. This means an intenal conduit THROUGH the model, or flutings on the sides. But, perhaps we should come up with a simple, unfluted, glass smooth model, as you suggest, and test it, in the Joe Latrell manner. If it doesn't work, we return to the drawing board. -- JHB
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
Joe, et al Sounds like a good test. I was thinking, there is/was a brand of cigar which comes in an aluminum cylinder about 8" long and about 3/4" in diameter. It has a screw on lid and the other end of the tube is hemispherical the sides are straight and do not taper but it might make a good scale model to begin with. It's large enough to work with. Mickey D. Schmidt, Dir. USAF Academy Planetarium Center for Educational Multimedia USAF Academy, CO 80840 -Original Message- From: Joe Latrell [mailto:joe_latrell@;beyond-earth.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:32 PM To: Europa IcePIC mailing list Subject: Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING Teflon might help. The best way to find out is to try. As for groves, I don't know. Again, this is what testing is for, right? Speaking of tests, my way cheap concept tester is actually built up from Estes rocket parts, a nichrome wire, some spreay adhesive, a few shots of platicoat, some Al foil and a final few layers of teflon (ommited on test subject B just because). All this runs on a 9v battery with no additional hardware. The tests: 1) Does it heat up correctly or does it burn itself up? a) It works - Great - try again to make sure. b) It burns up - try installing a voltage regulator. 2) Can I get it to bore through a 6 lb. block of ice? a) It works great and spits out the underside. b) It works, but runs out of battery power in the ice. c) It doesn't go anywhere. 3) Can it do this in a cold environment aka a freezer? See test 2. I have assembled the parts and plan to photograph the tests. Good, bad or ugly results published. The total cost of materials - less than $20 US. Notes: This is not a completely scientific test. The subject will run in a freezer and my camera is not too fond of the cold. Besides, the light does not stay on when I close the door :) Does anyone have any objections, complaints, additions? Does anyone think I'm jumping the gun here? Joe Latrell BTW - This is for my own amusement, so to speak. I love talking about the possibilities, but I really want to see if this works for myself. If it does great, if not lets try something else. On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 22:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:10:07 PM Alaskan Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > In this design (which is just a quick concept - I think the theory > > should be tested) the 'entire' skin has the heating elements. Imagine > > just below the aluminum skin is a network of small heating elements > > (nichrome wire). This network heats the entire surface, not just the > > nose. > > Yes, if you'll look back on some prior posts, say 1 week back, that's what we > were talking about... a heated nose, and a warm skin on the sides, to assist > the slipperiness. > > A thin layer of water forms around the entire craft making it> > > slippery. Its weight coupled with the heating will allow this type of > > craft to move slowly downward. > > Joe, what do you think of the idea of spraying it with teflon? Would that > assist the slipperiness at all? > > > > > Since our model will not be carrying any radioactive heating elements > > anytime soone, the idea was to have a single wire provide power to > > augment the batteries - unless of course someone wants to calculate > > exactly how much dc power it would take to melt ~ 180,000 cubic inches > > of water - (pi * 6) * (500' * 12) or there abouts. > > > That's a job for Robt. Bradbury. Grand scale calculations are his forte'. > Robert? > > > > Note: I did say this is a rough sketch. I can add more of the mental > > notes I have. As a matter of fact I was thinking about some pictures of > > the process to make a skin of this type - I might have enough materials > > to at least test the theory. > > We were thinking of 2 ideas for the actual model (not of the prototype for > the model). These were: > 1) having Robert Crawley's Elite Precision Machining make a stamped metal > exterior casing, perhaps with flutings or spiraled grooves to assist with > water shed, and > 2) using an old torpedo tube, and simply refurbishing it. Using a torp, > there might already be prefab compartments / bays. It also might have a > battery that we can adapt. > > For a prototype (IcePIC iA), I guess your concept of a cardboard tube (such > as a postal packing tube) wrapped with aluminum foil for insulation, then > wrapped with wire, then more aluminum foil, then sprayed with waterproofer, > then teflon, might do the trick. > > -- John > > > >
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
You aren’t going to want any kind of flutes or anything on the shaft of this thing. Expect it to get clogged real fast. Glass smooth stainless 4130, or smoother is preferable. Polish it with newspaper, and then polish it again with RainX. An old torpedo tube would work better as it can probably be had in some form or another off the shelf. Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 11:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:10:07 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In this design (which is just a quick concept - I think the theory should be tested) the 'entire' skin has the heating elements. Imagine just below the aluminum skin is a network of small heating elements (nichrome wire). This network heats the entire surface, not just the nose. Yes, if you'll look back on some prior posts, say 1 week back, that's what we were talking about... a heated nose, and a warm skin on the sides, to assist the slipperiness. A thin layer of water forms around the entire craft making it slippery. Its weight coupled with the heating will allow this type of craft to move slowly downward. Joe, what do you think of the idea of spraying it with teflon? Would that assist the slipperiness at all? Since our model will not be carrying any radioactive heating elements anytime soone, the idea was to have a single wire provide power to augment the batteries - unless of course someone wants to calculate exactly how much dc power it would take to melt ~ 180,000 cubic inches of water - (pi * 6) * (500' * 12) or there abouts. That's a job for Robt. Bradbury. Grand scale calculations are his forte'. Robert? Note: I did say this is a rough sketch. I can add more of the mental notes I have. As a matter of fact I was thinking about some pictures of the process to make a skin of this type - I might have enough materials to at least test the theory. We were thinking of 2 ideas for the actual model (not of the prototype for the model). These were: 1) having Robert Crawley's Elite Precision Machining make a stamped metal exterior casing, perhaps with flutings or spiraled grooves to assist with water shed, and 2) using an old torpedo tube, and simply refurbishing it. Using a torp, there might already be prefab compartments / bays. It also might have a battery that we can adapt. For a prototype (IcePIC iA), I guess your concept of a cardboard tube (such as a postal packing tube) wrapped with aluminum foil for insulation, then wrapped with wire, then more aluminum foil, then sprayed with waterproofer, then teflon, might do the trick. -- John Joe Latrell
Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING
Teflon might help. The best way to find out is to try. As for groves, I don't know. Again, this is what testing is for, right? Speaking of tests, my way cheap concept tester is actually built up from Estes rocket parts, a nichrome wire, some spreay adhesive, a few shots of platicoat, some Al foil and a final few layers of teflon (ommited on test subject B just because). All this runs on a 9v battery with no additional hardware. The tests: 1) Does it heat up correctly or does it burn itself up? a) It works - Great - try again to make sure. b) It burns up - try installing a voltage regulator. 2) Can I get it to bore through a 6 lb. block of ice? a) It works great and spits out the underside. b) It works, but runs out of battery power in the ice. c) It doesn't go anywhere. 3) Can it do this in a cold environment aka a freezer? See test 2. I have assembled the parts and plan to photograph the tests. Good, bad or ugly results published. The total cost of materials - less than $20 US. Notes: This is not a completely scientific test. The subject will run in a freezer and my camera is not too fond of the cold. Besides, the light does not stay on when I close the door :) Does anyone have any objections, complaints, additions? Does anyone think I'm jumping the gun here? Joe Latrell BTW - This is for my own amusement, so to speak. I love talking about the possibilities, but I really want to see if this works for myself. If it does great, if not lets try something else. On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 22:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:10:07 PM Alaskan Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > In this design (which is just a quick concept - I think the theory > > should be tested) the 'entire' skin has the heating elements. Imagine > > just below the aluminum skin is a network of small heating elements > > (nichrome wire). This network heats the entire surface, not just the > > nose. > > Yes, if you'll look back on some prior posts, say 1 week back, that's what we > were talking about... a heated nose, and a warm skin on the sides, to assist > the slipperiness. > > A thin layer of water forms around the entire craft making it> > > slippery. Its weight coupled with the heating will allow this type of > > craft to move slowly downward. > > Joe, what do you think of the idea of spraying it with teflon? Would that > assist the slipperiness at all? > > > > > Since our model will not be carrying any radioactive heating elements > > anytime soone, the idea was to have a single wire provide power to > > augment the batteries - unless of course someone wants to calculate > > exactly how much dc power it would take to melt ~ 180,000 cubic inches > > of water - (pi * 6) * (500' * 12) or there abouts. > > > That's a job for Robt. Bradbury. Grand scale calculations are his forte'. > Robert? > > > > Note: I did say this is a rough sketch. I can add more of the mental > > notes I have. As a matter of fact I was thinking about some pictures of > > the process to make a skin of this type - I might have enough materials > > to at least test the theory. > > We were thinking of 2 ideas for the actual model (not of the prototype for > the model). These were: > 1) having Robert Crawley's Elite Precision Machining make a stamped metal > exterior casing, perhaps with flutings or spiraled grooves to assist with > water shed, and > 2) using an old torpedo tube, and simply refurbishing it. Using a torp, > there might already be prefab compartments / bays. It also might have a > battery that we can adapt. > > For a prototype (IcePIC iA), I guess your concept of a cardboard tube (such > as a postal packing tube) wrapped with aluminum foil for insulation, then > wrapped with wire, then more aluminum foil, then sprayed with waterproofer, > then teflon, might do the trick. > > -- John > > > > > > > Joe Latrell > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING
In a message dated 10/29/2002 7:10:07 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In this design (which is just a quick concept - I think the theory should be tested) the 'entire' skin has the heating elements. Imagine just below the aluminum skin is a network of small heating elements (nichrome wire). This network heats the entire surface, not just the nose. Yes, if you'll look back on some prior posts, say 1 week back, that's what we were talking about... a heated nose, and a warm skin on the sides, to assist the slipperiness. A thin layer of water forms around the entire craft making it slippery. Its weight coupled with the heating will allow this type of craft to move slowly downward. Joe, what do you think of the idea of spraying it with teflon? Would that assist the slipperiness at all? Since our model will not be carrying any radioactive heating elements anytime soone, the idea was to have a single wire provide power to augment the batteries - unless of course someone wants to calculate exactly how much dc power it would take to melt ~ 180,000 cubic inches of water - (pi * 6) * (500' * 12) or there abouts. That's a job for Robt. Bradbury. Grand scale calculations are his forte'. Robert? Note: I did say this is a rough sketch. I can add more of the mental notes I have. As a matter of fact I was thinking about some pictures of the process to make a skin of this type - I might have enough materials to at least test the theory. We were thinking of 2 ideas for the actual model (not of the prototype for the model). These were: 1) having Robert Crawley's Elite Precision Machining make a stamped metal exterior casing, perhaps with flutings or spiraled grooves to assist with water shed, and 2) using an old torpedo tube, and simply refurbishing it. Using a torp, there might already be prefab compartments / bays. It also might have a battery that we can adapt. For a prototype (IcePIC iA), I guess your concept of a cardboard tube (such as a postal packing tube) wrapped with aluminum foil for insulation, then wrapped with wire, then more aluminum foil, then sprayed with waterproofer, then teflon, might do the trick. -- John Joe Latrell
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
In this design (which is just a quick concept - I think the theory should be tested) the 'entire' skin has the heating elements. Imagine just below the aluminum skin is a network of small heating elements (nichrome wire). This network heats the entire surface, not just the nose. A thin layer of water forms around the entire craft making it slippery. Its weight coupled with the heating will allow this type of craft to move slowly downward. Since our model will not be carrying any radioactive heating elements anytime soone, the idea was to have a single wire provide power to augment the batteries - unless of course someone wants to calculate exactly how much dc power it would take to melt ~ 180,000 cubic inches of water - (pi * 6) * (500' * 12) or there abouts. Note: I did say this is a rough sketch. I can add more of the mental notes I have. As a matter of fact I was thinking about some pictures of the process to make a skin of this type - I might have enough materials to at least test the theory. Joe Latrell On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 17:34, A.J. Mackenzie wrote: > > > Okay, who gets the napkin drawing? I have a really > > rough sketch in .PDF > > format. > > > > I didn't think it would be appropriate to send it > > through the list so I > > dropped a copy here: > > > > > http://www.beyond-earth.com/proteus/proteus_0_0_1.pdf > > okay, that's kinda neat, but i do have a couple > questions: > > 1) where's the heating element located in this model? > i assume it's in the nose somewhere, but all i see > there is "weight". how big does the heating element > have to be to melt enough ice to allow the vehicle to > pass? i guess this is a function of the temperature > of the ice, the temperature of the heating element, > and the speed of the vehicle, but i don't have any > idea what those variables should be. > > 2) what do you do with the meltwater? i assume you > pass it though the vehicle itself using some kind of > conduits, but i didn't see that detail in the sketch. > > - a.j. > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now > http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
> Okay, who gets the napkin drawing? I have a really > rough sketch in .PDF > format. > > I didn't think it would be appropriate to send it > through the list so I > dropped a copy here: > > http://www.beyond-earth.com/proteus/proteus_0_0_1.pdf okay, that's kinda neat, but i do have a couple questions: 1) where's the heating element located in this model? i assume it's in the nose somewhere, but all i see there is "weight". how big does the heating element have to be to melt enough ice to allow the vehicle to pass? i guess this is a function of the temperature of the ice, the temperature of the heating element, and the speed of the vehicle, but i don't have any idea what those variables should be. 2) what do you do with the meltwater? i assume you pass it though the vehicle itself using some kind of conduits, but i didn't see that detail in the sketch. - a.j. __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
Okay, who gets the napkin drawing? I have a really rough sketch in .PDF format. I didn't think it would be appropriate to send it through the list so I dropped a copy here: http://www.beyond-earth.com/proteus/proteus_0_0_1.pdf Note: This is just what I saw in my mind when I read through all of the emails. It is chisled in ice and can be resculpted into anything you want. Warning it is 380 Kb and might take a few minutes to download (this is what happens when you use print quality settings). Joe Latrell Beyond-Earth Enterprises On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 08:48, Schmidt Mickey Civ 50 ES/CC wrote: > Sorry that some of my replies seem to be "been there done that" replies. I'm > reading the posts in reverse order so if I repeat suggestions other have > made I'm sorry. The comment below suggests we are looking for an aluminum > shell. There is fairly thin walled aluminum irrigation pipe that might be > useful. I would think that inside the aluminum shell if some PVC material > (pipe mounted concentrically) might insulate the "working components". The > thinner the outer shell the less heat is needed to keep it warm and thus > more heat will be available to melt the ice. Are we looking at gravity > propelling the device downward or some sort of propulsion mechanism? Just > so we are looking at the same concepts is that napkin design available to be > put on the web so we can look at common ideas? Then we can make more > reasonable suggestions related to design. > > > > Mickey Schmidt > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:JHByrne@;aol.com] > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:38 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: PROJECT REFOCUSING > > > > > > > We're talking about a model that can slowly cut through 500' of ice -- > > that's all. So, warm water jets, creating an envelope of warm water > around > > the model as it works through the ice, should be sufficient without any > > significant danger of hydraulic pressure. So, we're decided: warm water > > jets are the motive force for the model. > > I see no point to this. What you have then is a "toy", not a prototype > for something that might tackle Europa. Witness: > > > Our probe represents the efforts of a group of space enthusiasts, > > to demonstrate the feasibility of a real 'Icepick'. > > > > So what??? If you look at the original rockets sent up by Goddard in 1927, > there are better kit models today than what he had then. > You have to start somewhere. Coming up with 1001 reasons why you can't do > something is not starting. > > > > > If you are going to demonstrate "feasibility", then you need to be > realistic about the Europan environment and limitations (i.e. no > solar power) and address them. > > > > That's why we're trying to promote this thing without an extension cord. > We're trying to make it somewhat self-sufficient, as we know a probe must > be. > Now, I do NOT think we need to mess around with 1) carrying a hydrobot, 2) > having a video camera, 3) going to Lake Vostok, etc. > This is simply a small aluminum shell, with an internal heat source, that > can go 500' through a hunk of ice, and leave a trail of 5 transponders > behind it. That's all. It is not rocket science. It IS doable, with > off-the-shelf parts. > > > > > Re: (responses to my comments): > > First, you're the expert on finding high energy sources for very small > things. > > Not really. I simply know what nanotechnology will enable. I am by no > means > an "expert" on what current technology allows. > > I a far from an expert. I could probably do the calculations on the energy > requirements if the size of the probe were specified. *But* it begs an > issue of how long you want the experiment to run. If NASA is content to > take a decade to reach a planet, then they may be content for half-a-decade > for a probe to melt through an icecap (or longer). That type of progress > isn't something that makes the evening news (if publicity is what you seek). > > > > We are not talking 5 year plans, here. We don't have NASA's budget, or > incentive to string out a project for 10 years. This has to be done within > 1 or 2 years. > It is no longer sufficient to simply sit back in an armchair and be an > untested expert. We all know that there's plenty of theory out there > already. What this project is about is taking a small, doable task, and > then doing it. > > > > > One can certainly find higher energy sources than Pu-238, but then one is > faced with two problems -- (a) the cost of purchasing enough of this > material; > (the DOE has allocated millions of $ to purchase the Pu-238 to fuel the > remaining RTGs) and (b) the environmental impact problems. > > I've devoted some thought to "fueled" alternatives and I just don't see > any way to do it that won't involve people laughing at it as a stunt > rather than a serious scientific feasibility demonstration. You will > have cartoons in
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
Sorry that some of my replies seem to be "been there done that" replies. I'm reading the posts in reverse order so if I repeat suggestions other have made I'm sorry. The comment below suggests we are looking for an aluminum shell. There is fairly thin walled aluminum irrigation pipe that might be useful. I would think that inside the aluminum shell if some PVC material (pipe mounted concentrically) might insulate the "working components". The thinner the outer shell the less heat is needed to keep it warm and thus more heat will be available to melt the ice. Are we looking at gravity propelling the device downward or some sort of propulsion mechanism? Just so we are looking at the same concepts is that napkin design available to be put on the web so we can look at common ideas? Then we can make more reasonable suggestions related to design. Mickey Schmidt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 4:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PROJECT REFOCUSING > We're talking about a model that can slowly cut through 500' of ice -- > that's all. So, warm water jets, creating an envelope of warm water around > the model as it works through the ice, should be sufficient without any > significant danger of hydraulic pressure. So, we're decided: warm water > jets are the motive force for the model. I see no point to this. What you have then is a "toy", not a prototype for something that might tackle Europa. Witness: > Our probe represents the efforts of a group of space enthusiasts, > to demonstrate the feasibility of a real 'Icepick'. So what??? If you look at the original rockets sent up by Goddard in 1927, there are better kit models today than what he had then. You have to start somewhere. Coming up with 1001 reasons why you can't do something is not starting. If you are going to demonstrate "feasibility", then you need to be realistic about the Europan environment and limitations (i.e. no solar power) and address them. That's why we're trying to promote this thing without an extension cord. We're trying to make it somewhat self-sufficient, as we know a probe must be. Now, I do NOT think we need to mess around with 1) carrying a hydrobot, 2) having a video camera, 3) going to Lake Vostok, etc. This is simply a small aluminum shell, with an internal heat source, that can go 500' through a hunk of ice, and leave a trail of 5 transponders behind it. That's all. It is not rocket science. It IS doable, with off-the-shelf parts. Re: (responses to my comments): > First, you're the expert on finding high energy sources for very small things. Not really. I simply know what nanotechnology will enable. I am by no means an "expert" on what current technology allows. I a far from an expert. I could probably do the calculations on the energy requirements if the size of the probe were specified. *But* it begs an issue of how long you want the experiment to run. If NASA is content to take a decade to reach a planet, then they may be content for half-a-decade for a probe to melt through an icecap (or longer). That type of progress isn't something that makes the evening news (if publicity is what you seek). We are not talking 5 year plans, here. We don't have NASA's budget, or incentive to string out a project for 10 years. This has to be done within 1 or 2 years. It is no longer sufficient to simply sit back in an armchair and be an untested expert. We all know that there's plenty of theory out there already. What this project is about is taking a small, doable task, and then doing it. One can certainly find higher energy sources than Pu-238, but then one is faced with two problems -- (a) the cost of purchasing enough of this material; (the DOE has allocated millions of $ to purchase the Pu-238 to fuel the remaining RTGs) and (b) the environmental impact problems. I've devoted some thought to "fueled" alternatives and I just don't see any way to do it that won't involve people laughing at it as a stunt rather than a serious scientific feasibility demonstration. You will have cartoons in the NY Times of somebody sitting on the surface of the glacier riding a bicycle attached to a generator to produce the electricity needed to power the cryobot (for 5 years). > Can you help us figure out how to get sufficient power to provide > heat for this model, without relying on a 500' extension cord? Very hot radioisotopes would do it. But I've mentioned the problems with those. > Alternatively, can you help to make the model so efficient, > that a limited power source (such as 3-4 batteries or a propane/gasoline > heated engine) will be sufficient? Batteries definitely will *not* do it. You could do it with propane/gasoline but that is going to require (a) a fuel line; (b) an oxygen line; and (c) a way to feed those fuel lines through the ice (that may be moving and/or refreezing). That pr
Re: PROJECT REFOCUSING
In a message dated 10/28/2002 3:34:43 PM Alaskan Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are 25 glaciers on Rainier. Carbon, the thickest glacier on Rainier is 700', Nisqually is 400' thick. Carbon is much longer hike and would require some technical climbing. Nisqually is flat, close and easy. What is the minimum thickness for testing? Leonardo DiFrancesco, M.S., P.E. About 250' thick should be minimum, considering that at the lower depths, the ice will be fractured, and contaminated with boulders and tree trunks. It must have at least 250' of pristine or semi-pristine ice. Rainier is the best hope, as it is reachable by just about everyone. Note that even though the model is projected for a 500' test run, it can't go straight down. It's not a drill, it's a self-contained ice submersible, capable of semi-lateral movement. -- John Harlow Byrne
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
There are 25 glaciers on Rainier. Carbon, the thickest glacier on Rainier is 700', Nisqually is 400' thick. Carbon is much longer hike and would require some technical climbing. Nisqually is flat, close and easy. What is the minimum thickness for testing? Leonardo DiFrancesco, M.S., P.E. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: 105 Harvard Ave. E., Apt.#106 Seattle, WA 98102 (Tel)206-709-0503 Work: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 2009 Minor Ave. E. Seattle, WA 98102-3513 (Tel)206-323-4767 Ext. 254 (Fax)206-323-7135 Original Message Follows From: "Robert Crawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:57:03 -0600 Yeah, but where else are you going to find it 3 miles deep? ;) Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-europa@;klx.com]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PROJECT REFOCUSING Bruce attached a website for a similar project. I think ours is somewhat different. One serious cost cutting factor is we are not planning to go to Antarctica. There's plenty of local ice. _ Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
RE: PROJECT REFOCUSING
Yeah, but where else are you going to find it 3 miles deep? ;) Robert Crawley Elite Precision Fabricators, Inc. Programming (936) 449-6823 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PROJECT REFOCUSING Bruce attached a website for a similar project. I think ours is somewhat different. One serious cost cutting factor is we are not planning to go to Antarctica. There's plenty of local ice.
