[DIYbio] Fwd: [luf-team] New Projects - New Paradigm

This is slightly off the usual biology track, but it's an interesting
twist on funding.

From: Eric Hunting <erichunting@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:27 PM
Subject: [luf-team] New Projects - New Paradigm
To: luf-team@yahoogroups.com


I've been pondering lately a new paradigm for space advocacy which
I've been developing around some new project concepts.

There has long been something of an identity crisis in space advocacy
because there has never been a definitive model for what a space
advocacy group is and is supposed to do. And this tends to manifest in
a perpetual debate over the question of whether one should be
advocating a future/development vision to the public, the government
and their space establishment, or taking an entrepreneurial route and
realizing this vision on one's own. Lately that latter approach has
become most popular as New Space entrepreneurs emerge and the space
advocacy community increasingly comes to view the public and
government/establishment as 'lost causes', too distracted and
self-absorbed to ever be reached by any conventional appeal. But the
hard reality is that there is no capital lining up for space and never
has been because very little near-term space activity has any
realistic prospect of a near-term return-on-investment. It's all
speculatively 20 years or more down the road. The basic idea of a
comprehensive space program as, simply, a 'business' has never made
sense to Capital and ultra-wealthy individuals spending personal
fortunes built in other industries on personal space pursuits is not a
practical example the rest of society can follow. The organizers of
space advocacy groups also share much the same demographic as their
rank-and-file audience--the poorer lower skill/talent end of the
white-collar/service industry middle-class spectrum. This is not the
best entrepreneurial material and they have much work to do building
their own skills. The science and engineering professionals who
originally founded space advocacy have generally abandoned it as they
found their jobs in the establishment, relegating it to the status of
a fandom they will occasionally pander to when they feel a need for
political support, but otherwise dismiss. They never really
participate--can't because of the hazard to their professional status.
Thus many debates over the purpose and focus of space advocacy seem to
sound rather like peculiar kids arguing over which of a number of
impossible superhero characters they want to be when they grow up, and
one proposal after another dies hitting the wall of practical reality.

I think that business development is a critical aspect of space
development, but cannot be considered independently from outreach to
the larger society because, ultimately, that's where all the money,
skills, and talent have to come from. If space has no relevance to the
public, why should we expect it to be relevant to Capital? But with
public interest in space at an all-time low thanks to the never-ending
distractions of soft, culture, political, class, race, and economic
war raining down on society, how do we effectively reach people? What
can we do to re-catalyze public interest and turn that interest into
the resources--the money and skill/talent--we need to build with? How
do we bridge the huge gap between what we desire to do and what we
realistically can do?

I think there is a relatively straightforward model for space advocacy
groups that has been largely overlooked because of their very
technological focus--their focus on the end-product rather than the
process. I call it the Cousteau Paradigm because the example was most
definitively set by the famous marine explorer Jacque Cousteau and his
Cousteau Society. At a time, post Apollo, when space started declining
in public interest, this non-profit organization was accomplishing
many of the things space advocacy groups aspire to do today, all
supported by individual donations, corporate sponsorship, and
cooperative effort from many institutions. They acquired and
re-purposesd a host of ships and vehicles, built cutting-edge
equipment, experimental ships including wingsail and turbosail ships,
custom-designed submersibles and marine robots, underwater habitats,
and elaborate research facilities and maintained a sophisticated
lifestyle for Cousteau, his family, and his 'team' of science,
engineering, and media pros. Cousteau even had plans for a floating
eco-city. When Cousteau started his career the undersea environment
was as challenging and unknown an environment as outer space and what
he created was akin to a government-independent space
program--basically on about the same scale as the Mercury program. He
recognized this analog and even called his diving team 'aquanauts'.
How was all this possible, especially when none of it produced
straightforward products, an economic ROI, or had any government
backing driven by Cold War gamesmanship?

Well, in fact Cousteau did produce a very specific, powerful, product
and to understand it one needs to understand exactly what his career
was about. Cousteau was, essentially, a 'professional adventurer',
coming out of a tradition that goes back to at least the late 18th and
early 19th centuries. Professional adventurers are people who make a
living by traveling to exotic places the average person may never get
to travel to and bringing back cool stories from those places to
present to the public as paid entertainment. (this was different from,
but often crossed with, the traditional explorers assaying frontiers
and 'professional naturalists' who went to exotic places to collect
samples of new species to sell to scientists and zoos) In the past,
this was basically about books, magazine articles, and theater
presentations and the adventurer's travels would be speculatively
financed by wealthy patrons, sometimes science institutions if the
journey was more science-oriented, and publishing and theater
companies seeking exclusive distribution rights. It then tended to be
rather sensationalistic as with today's 'action films' as the
characterization of the adventurer in western culture was then
commonly seen as a gung-ho, ultra-masculine, gun-toting superman
taking on Mother Nature mano-a-mano.

This tradition of professional adventuring has continued to the
present day, evolving to suit new media, new twists on the style of
the masculine ideal (strangely, we rarely see women in the adventurer
role in media today despite their powerful impact in sports, the field
sciences, and as astronauts--old traditions die hard), and slowly
adopting a generally 'scientific' motif. Adventure/nature films were a
well established genre by Cousteau's time and he pioneered a new venue
for that through the invention of the Aqua-Lung--what we more commonly
call scuba systems today--and a host of new color underwater
photography and film hardware that really opened up the sea to this
medium. But Cousteau did more than just revolutionize underwater
photography. He cultivated for himself a totally new cultural model of
the adventurer. He was not the gung-ho he-man of the past. Rather he
portrayed himself as a soft-spoken, reflective scientist-explorer. A
seafaring naturalist. An environmental guru. This was totally
different from the traditional cultural model but much more in-tune
with the ethos of the emerging environmental movement he allied to.
And he cultivated a style of documentary that didn't just focus on the
sea life and underwater archeology he was going out to capture on
film, but also on the process--the journey--of capturing those images
and thus his own and his 'team's' novel sea-faring lifestyles. His
films have some of the character of both science documentaries and,
oddly enough, surfer documentaries. Even equipment and vessels, like
the Calypso, the nostalgic and romantic converted Catalina PBY (which
sadly crashed, taking his son Phllippe's life. Note how, later on,
Greenpeace felt compelled to get one of these iconic planes for
themselves…), the Secoup, became recognizable re-ocurring 'characters'
in his films, just like iconic spaceships in SciFi media. His key
breakthrough was teaming up with Metromedia, ABC and NBC, which got
his films on TV and into millions of homes across the world,
magnifying the value of brand association drawing ever-more commercial
sponsorship. It was a pre-cursor to reality TV and totally changed the
way nature/science documentaries would be produced from then on.
(though late '60s/early'70s documentaries from the BBC, like Jacob
Bronowski's The Ascent Of Man, probably had as much influence on
general science media and its cinematic approach--Bronowski taught
Sagan his schtick)

So, basically, all the amazing technical feats and journeys of
Cousteau's organizations were financed chiefly on the entertainment
value of his own lifestyle as documented in film and put on TV. That
was the product--a very powerful product because the vicarious
experience of seeing people doing interesting things in exotic places
is universally popular and corporations will pay for the eyeballs. The
basic formula of the traditional professional adventurer still works
very well; go to the wilderness, bring back cool stories, deliver awe
and/or laughter, profit.

We generally think of projects in the context of bootstrapping a
business or getting philanthropic support to build specific Big
Hardware, which seems perfectly logical on the face of it but leaves
untenably large gaps to fill in implementation. This stuff is just too
often impossible to justify to Capital or government. It's all like
building arcologies. But everyone (crazy as it seems to me
personally…) seems to crave attention and media exposure, for
themselves, their companies, their products, their brands. It may be
necessary to start thinking of projects more in the context of their
catalytic potential as a function of their entertainment value, their
'cool factor', their potential to produce photographic and video media
as a means to inspire the donation of resources to accomplish them. We
must think about ROI in terms of numbers of eyeballs. How many times
have I said that space advocacy is show-biz, yet even I've tended to
think of this in the context of developing and publishing traditional
futurist media we can no longer easily produce because the artists and
designers that needs aren't culturally with us. They no longer get
what we're trying to do as any relevant venue for their work. But
while professional art and design have become inaccessible, video
technology and digital media distribution have become cheap and
ubiquitous. Cousteau needed to specifically partner with TV networks
to reach people. Now we have YouTube and such and can reach the world
with ease--if we have something to _show_ them. Amateurs--even just
idiots doing random stupid stunts--now win audiences of millions. We
need to leverage that at-hand power. Some people in space advocacy
have started cluing into this idea. The recent Mars One program is
based on the idea that its one-way travel settlement scheme would be
sponsored largely on its exploitation as the ultimate in reality TV
and the greatest feat for corporate sponsors to attach their brands
to--and for the moment this is actually working and gathering momentum
among corporate sponsors. There are corporations large enough that
they could actually finance a manned mission to Mars and who might
just do it for the sake of having that feat associated with their
brand forever.

Now, I've generally been averse to the notion that space programs need
astronauts regardless of their cost because without them there is no
one for the public to identify with. I think Hubble and the Mars
rovers have well put paid to that idea. (and, truth be told, the
compulsive top-down image-control applied to astronauts, much like
presidents, has long made them ironically un-relatable until quite
recently, when the stranglehold began occasionally being loosened-up
and engineers, scientists, and astronauts in the space program could
start expressing themselves through their own media. Still, we have
more active astronauts than ever in history, yet few can name any of
them) But there is a grain of truth here in that what people generally
want is a human interest story and a vicarious experience. It's not
just about the end-result but the human story in the process of
getting there. This, I think, is the overlooked key to motivation for
our rank-and-file membership that they have never been able to
articulate themselves. What they ultimately really want is to _see_
people _doing_ things! It's by that which the credibility and vitality
of a space advocacy group is measured.

When you think about projects in this context it opens up a new range
of possibilities at more modest scales. Not everything has to result
in Big Hardware or fit exactly in the specific development plan of TMP
as long as it catalyzes public interest, captures eyeballs, draws
support, and by that helps build resources and capabilities. Take, for
instance, the IOSI program. I had the interest of fledgling TV network
OWL TV in that because they realized that, in the idea of a global
community of space robotics developers, and more specifically in the
idea of expositions where they would demo and sometimes participate in
trials and competitions, was this potential human interest story about
people in different parts of the world with a common dream and
objective but unique problems and approaches for pursuing that given
their different locations, cultures, and stations in life. And that
could be the basis of a compelling documentary series. One can imagine
this hypothetical story about a smart but poor kid in Mumbai who comes
up with a clever solution to a particular robot design problem and we
can follow him as he tries to get it to prototype and then makes the
arduous journey to the next IOSI expo to meet with like-minded people
for the first time and show his work to the world. That's a story that
people will watch--and that's money in the bank. The only problem was
that OWL were too small and poor to sponsor this alone and I've had
too much difficulty communicating the telebase concept to a space
advocacy community that still has its head in the 1960s.

Many projects in this context come down to 'feats' of some kind. Take,
for example, the Swiss PlanetSolar project. (largely ignored by US
news media) The premise was simple; build the first solar powered ship
to sail around the world. And their design was hardly minimalist. This
was a custom-engineered 31 meter ship with a 4 man crew and
accommodations for up to 12 passengers that cost 15 million euros to
build. And here are the sponsors they won for this project in just a
couple years of shopping it around;

http://www.planetsolar.org/partners/our-partners

Another similar project, and another Swiss endeavor, Solar Impulse
aims to fly an exclusively solar-powered aircraft non-stop around the
world;

http://solarimpulse.com

Being a much greater technical challenge, this has taken much longer,
having started in 2003 and currently expected to complete its goal in,
perhaps, 2015. But look at this sponsor list;

http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/team/partners/

Why are all these companies supporting such a project? For this;

http://www.solarimpulse.com/en/multimedia/videos/

What sort of projects might we devise in this context suited to TMP's
narrative? Well, the IOSI is one good example. In addition to the
IOSI's potential to delve into participants' stories and the appeal of
its public expositions, there are a number of key activities that
would have great media event potential. The near-term goal of the IOSI
is to deploy unmanned test bases here on Earth to test and demonstrate
the prototypes of hardware that would ultimately be deployed in space.
So the plan is to create several test-bed outpost facilities where we
deploy, without any on-site human intervention, prototype robots and
hardware to do exactly the same stuff they're intended to do in space
but in a more accessible location such as Iceland or the Atacama
desert. These facilities would be covered by wired and wireless
network of web cameras--the most basic element in the hardware of the
facilities being 'trail markers', WiFi cluster network transponders,
'lamp posts', charging/power stations, and robotic task-lamps that all
can feature cameras providing many POVs to aid teleoperation--and
views for the public on-line. Instead of spacecraft to deploy this
hardware we would use cargo drop planes and robotic aircraft such as
prototype Aquarius Airship hulls or rotorcraft that provide an analog
to the use of soft and rough lander technology. So we could stage and
televise various landing/deployment missions just like the eventual
space missions and put the testbed outposts built on-line 24/7 though
their network of deployed cameras. We can even create on-line
'sandbox' areas where people can participate in operating these robots
themselves. Anything where you have a story of groups of people making
some new interesting pieces of hardware and deploying it in an unusual
place that can culminate in some sort of NASA-like televised event in
a 'mission control' setting has potential for visual drama of a sort,
and thus potential for media that can win commercial sponsorship. And
this is something where the showcase potential for robotics, IT, and
telecom companies in particular is vast.

Another possibility is 'lifestyle experiments' as the basis of reality
TV. This is what Mars One intends to do with its prototype
outpost--another demo outpost in a desert setting. Recently I made the
comment, in the context of the Aquarian Seed settlement, that people
would not be taking out mortgages to invest in a Mars 500 project (the
Mars mission simulation recently done by ESA and Russian Space Agency)
in a bunch of shipping containers when what they are trying to make is
a home to live in. But, in this other context, that is in fact
something commercial sponsors would pay for as a temporary televised
event if it accomplished something interesting and put their brands in
a positive setting. I'm skeptical about the practical value role
playing space missions, but there are legitimate things like
ergonomics and lifestyle that can be explored with mockups and I see
the possibility for many such scenarios relating to the different
places/settlements TMP intends to build.

One relatively easy to implement idea that comes to mind is a project
I call Space-At-Home, which relates to the idea of an open home show
of the future as part of the IOSI expos. The basic idea is to create a
mock-up of a permanent home or very small community on Mars or the
moon--which means its design is based not on pre-fab habitats but on
the TMP2's proposed architecture for permanent settlement; excavated
and built-up vault/bunker structures. It's not intended to be a
psychological study in 'roughing it' but rather an ergonomic study in
how to do exactly the opposite--to live well in space. It would be
intended to explore ideas of ISRU and the spectrum of materials,
foods, and such that would produce early-on and how that applies to a
particular lifestyle--and not some military-like utilitarian existence
but rather an attempt at a very comfortable, attractive, way of life.
That's the novel twist. No one has ever really illustrated or
demonstrated space as a place to live well in. It's always been--when
it comes down to it--some variation of an army base or submarine
rather than a home. This is why I call this Space-At-Home. We want to
cultivate a positive vision of the future so we want to demonstrate,
as plausibly as we can, something better than the usual sub-duty in a
junk yard viewed through a kaleidoscope that NASA tends to
demonstrate. Something better than most people's lifestyles right here
on Earth. As I often say, the reason Star Trek trumped NASA for public
appeal is that Star Trek portrays a future that looks swank. This is a
new perspective for space advocacy and we can totally own that from a
media perspective.

To showcase this we record people living that settlement lifestyle for
a time in a mockup habitat built in an analog to the real and likely
permanent settlement structure--places like the Kansas City
Subtropolis, in large opaque or translucent industrial domes (even the
inflatables would work), old airship hangars, etc. There's a simple
narrative here; telerobots have built our basic structures and
installed our basic life-support, communications, and easily
accessible resource-gathering systems. Now we move in with a basic kit
of tools, and some modest light furnishings and supplies brought with
us, and, in X amount of time, we're going to turn these raw spaces and
available local materials into a comfortable home. We're ultimately
exploring the question of how good a life can you craft in this
situation--which poses a lot of interesting design questions, the
chief one being how to live well when you're indoors all the time. It
would be like This Old House in a Colonial Williamsburg of the
future--and that would make for a lot of media people can push their
company logos and show-off their products on. It would also be a
powerful venue for educating the public on the new tools of digital
fabrication, soft technologies, renewable energy, and urban farming
that are now becoming available. It might not be suited to the
trumped-up drama and engineered conflict of reality TV where the
underlying lesson always seems to be negative/anti-social. They always
go for the cheap and easy schadenfreude. It would probably work better
as a web-based multi-media project where you're following the 'vlog'
diaries of different team members linked by key live events. (the
arrival, periodic teleconferences, mockup exploration missions or
failures, etc.) Ikea would sponsor something like this. Much
settlement design is going to parallel their basic product design
theory and some of their products might be showcased as-is or
re-designed just to suit this showcase. Makers of laser cutters, CNC
machines, etc. would sponsor this. It would directly show-off their
products. And, just as in a real space settlement situation, settlers
are going to be connected to the Internet, which makes the Fourth Wall
permeable so viewers can optionally participate in helping the
pretend-settlers solve problems, walking them through issues of their
use of tools, offering design suggestions, gardening tips, you name
it.

How about scenarios based on more dramatic feats? One idea comes to
mind for bootstrapping the Aquarian Airship that starts out at a
modest scale--though this may need people with a bit more skills than
we have at the moment. Right now stratospheric balloon launches are
something of a fad, particularly as student projects. It's already
been heavily exploited commercially. There are even some small
companies that specialize in designing these balloon launches so a
company can get pictures of their products sitting in 'space'. Can we
one-up this idea to give it new interest? One way would be to make a
'balloon' that can go higher than anyone else's, stay up longer, is
reusable, and hosts more and better gear. And the basic concept behind
the Aquarian Airship offers us a way to do that because it's based on
developing a rigid lenticular composite hull hosting a flex-cell PV
array. Essentially, we can make a solar 'flying saucer' that actually
works and can beat these simple balloons by using vacuum lift at high
altitude to get that little bit closer to the actual edge of space.
Balloons self-destruct at a certain altitude because they increase in
internal pressure as they rise until they burst. A rigid hull would
continuously vent gas to keep climbing until it can actually start
pumping out residual gas to achieve a partial vacuum and float in the
edge of the atmosphere in the manner of a submarine in water at an
altitude determined by its displacement relative to its payload and
structural mass. So it can get to higher altitudes than anything short
of rockets and, once up there, stay indefinitely as long as there is
power to keep the hull evacuated. (some day diamondoid materials will
let us do this without lighter than air gas transition--which is the
ultimate goal of Aquarian Airship development--but for now we must go
with more common composites that are only strong enough to do this at
stratospheric air pressures) With a large area of on-board solar power
it can run more sophisticated cameras, panorama cameras, host science
instruments, and maintain live connections by long range WiFi. We can
then have it land on command, by parachute. It would be a
sophisticated vehicle--really, a reusable non-orbital satellite--but
it's well within the means of garage-shop development (basically,
we're talking a very thin shelled hollow surf board) with the right
sponsorship to cover its electronics and materials costs and this is
enough of an interesting new advance on this kind of feat to get some
of that sponsorship.

Now, we can keep going with this. Once we've demonstrated this basic
technology the same hull can be used for more feats. We can make it
larger, engineer more communications range into the hull using it as
integral antenna structure, add electric propulsion, add more
sophisticated science instrumentation and fly the thing by remote
control around the world as an atmospheric lab--maybe do the first
non-stop circumpolar flight. We can also fly it point-to-point by GPS
and have it deliver small payloads to remote locations. Get a small
medicine and good-will package to some very remote village or the
like. All these things can lead to progressively better composite
fabrication skills and facilities making, with commercial sponsors,
progressively larger experimental hulls with more sophisticated
propulsion. We would quickly get to a scale for permanent telecom
aerostats and stratospheric remote-viewing airships, sky-cranes,
products we can found a business on that which could then bootstrap
manned vessels. With green intercontinental transportation and
satellite-like telecom of our own at-hand, everything we want to do in
TMP becomes easier and faster. As I've said, the Aquarian Airship
should have been the original TMP's first project.

Then we have the Exocet Alpha project, the proposed program to develop
early sub-orbital in-water-launched rockets deployed by bi-plane
wingsail catamaran. This is essentially the same thing as Copenhagen
Suborbitals is doing, but with the long-term intension of developing a
commercial launch platform. People in space advocacy don't seem to
take unmanned suborbital rocketry too seriously despite the popular
interest in high-power amateur rocketry, but there's real science
applications to this and you have to start somewhere in building your
rocketry development capability and this is accessible--especially
when you consider the freedom of deployment at sea and, most
importantly, the _story_ that resides in this development and
deployment narrative. The scenario of sailing in a cool-looking Bright
Green/Eco-Tech vessel from Hawaii, San Diego, or San Francisco to
launch rockets from the sea is a very cool one and a feat that would
make for great media while at the same time leveraging the commercial
sponsorship for that to establish a critical engineering industrial
capability. You can imagine the space-themed equivalent of classic
surfer films. This could bootstrap both rocketry development and the
composites fabrication technology we need for so many other things in
TMP.

Another interesting feat that comes to mind would involve sea towers.
Like the Exocet Alpha project, this is probably on the high-end of
things and would probably be comparable to the PlanetSolar project in
costs but is still possibly accessible, especially if we exploit the
interest the SeaSteaders have attracted but not done much of anything
practical with. This project would basically be the prototype they
should have made long ago but have so far proven unwilling to create
and test--which I find odd because you can apply all the techniques of
modern yacht design and fabrication to make even a modest sized sea
tower pretty posh. You can make money with it and make a splash in the
design community. As I've noted, while I don't see them as a basis of
permanent settlement because you can't yet replicate them from aboard
them, they have poor self-sufficiency potential, and they're not
convenient to move people and stuff too and from, I do see the sea
tower as a useful tool and lucrative product. Ultimately, TMP may need
sea towers for very practical uses of science research, marine launch
support, remote renewable power, stand-alone OTECs, communications,
down-range telemetry networks, and other uses. We could win
sponsorship for the basic development of that using promotional feats,
just as with the Sea Orbiter. The Sea Orbiter--essentially a mobile
sea tower--is elegant, but overly elaborate and likely to be very
costly to build. But a more basic sea tower as can do most of what
that's intended to do at less cost and with much faster development.
Experimental ones could be engineered and deployed in as little as 6
months and could be used for unique demonstration feats of
long-duration open-sea travel that use the unique stability of the
structure to make such journeys more comfortable, continuously linked
by telecommunication, and suited to a lot of science activity.

Take the suggestion I made a while ago of a sea tower used as the
basis of high-value tuna farming combined with the geodesic AquaPod
fish pen. One of NELHAs current projects is based on towing an AquaPod
behind a sailing yacht around Hawaii to grow native pelagic fish.
Imagine staging a feat of slow-sailing a whole self-contained fish
farm raising tuna to maturity as it travels from California or Hawaii
to Japan and doing all sorts of oceanographic science along the way.
Some tuna species are now so valuable that one farmed 'crop' of them
from could pay for a fairly large luxury sea tower structure. That's
an epic story akin to a futurist version of the classic American
cattle-drive with a new kind of cowboy--and now we have the means to
cover that story by live telecom. Once we've done it, we've got a
thriving business making these things as people wake-up to all the
things they might use them for--which, again, is exactly the same
spectrum of fabrication capability we need to make green ships,
composite hull airships, and spacecraft. If a Swiss watch company can
come up with the 15 million euro to build a solar ship, surely
American and Japanese companies could pony up the dough for something
at least as cool to hang their logos on.

There are endless possibilities for bootstrapping projects with media,
and hence commercial sponsorship. We just need to start thinking about
the stories that are inside the projects we might do and the
entertainment value of those stories as the primary product, not just
the physical/hardware end result. Again, the ROI is measured in
eyeballs. That idea could transform space advocacy and bring it out of
a 1960s/70s mentality and into the contemporary culture. We need a new
Team Cousteau to sail out to the wilderness of the future and bring
back the cool stories from there to share.

Eric Hunting
erichunting@gmail.com





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

______________________________________________________________________

Don't forget to visit these LUF Sites!
LUF Home http://www.luf.org/
LUF Team http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/
LUF Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-website/
LUF Admin http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-admin/
TMP 2.0 http://tmp2.wikia.com/
LUF Blog http://theluf.blogspot.com/
OTEC News http://www.otecnews.org/
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
luf-team-digest@yahoogroups.com
luf-team-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
luf-team-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.