Slashdot Mirror


Microbes Produce Precursor To Missile Propellent

Makarand writes "According to this article on ScienceDaily.com microbiologists at the Michigan State University have created strains of bacteria which can convert certain types of sugars into a non-natural synthetic material, called butanetriol, which is used to produce a missile propellant (butanetriol trinitrate). The DNA of bacteria like Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fragi was altered so that these bacteria could act as minifactories producing butanetriol. Interestingly, butanetriol is a precursor to two cholesterol-lowering drugs making this process useful in both pharmaceutical and defense applications."

41 comments

  1. Yeah just what we need by Kethinov · · Score: 1, Insightful

    more missile propellent. God forbid we should research a cure for AIDS or Cancer when we can research new ways to create missile propellent! Because missile propellent is so much more important than real scientific research these days in America. Gotta arm ourselves because everyone except us is a terrorist!

    You may disagree with my cynicism but you know I'm right...

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    1. Re:Yeah just what we need by Zardoz44 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see where the problem is, according to the article:

      1. It's cleaner for the environment. (a good thing)

      2. It's more efficient and less costly. (saving you money == a good thing)

      3. Used in medicines as well as missles. (many uses == a good thing)

      4. The process can potentially be used to create other materials in a similar way, which may, who knows, help the fight against AIDs and cancer. (a good thing)

      Which part of this don't you like? Missles are going to be propelled one way or the other, so why not improve the method while at the same time advancing a technology that has potential to help in many other areas?

      Or were you just trolling?

    2. Re:Yeah just what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well death and destruction have always been more popular in this country than charity. It is always easier to beat someone else down than to build yourself up.

      I have to admit though, population control, even if via rockets, wouldn't be a totally bad thing.

    3. Re:Yeah just what we need by Raptorman2k · · Score: 0, Troll

      Death and Destruction have more popular to most ANY country than charity....but i dig the pop. control

    4. Re:Yeah just what we need by mbrinkm · · Score: 1

      Right, because butanetriol is a precursor to two cholesterol-lowering drugs isn't a good enough reason.

      Or maybe you didn't know that diseases of the heart are the number one killer in the United States. If you don't believe me, the stats from 2001, available from the CDC, have 700,142 deaths attributed to diseases of the heart giving it a whopping 29% of the total deaths.

      Here is the link to the pdf
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_09 .pdf

      --
      "Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
    5. Re:Yeah just what we need by cyberlync · · Score: 1

      Let me start out be saying that I take no position on any of the recent conflicts america has been involved in, so don't take this post as support of our current iraqi campain.

      We humans tend to be a blood thirsty species (in general). Those nations that are weak in implements of war tend to be destroyed over the long term. Hell, even those who are strong in war tend to be destroyed but it generally takes a bit longer. My point is that as much as the more 'liberal' minded people hate it war is a required part of any nations existance (at least if it wants to remain a nation). So I stick defense spending on an as high or higher level the medical/scientific/etc research. I do this becuase all of that research and technology wont mean a thing if were not around to make use of it.

      --
      I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
    6. Re:Yeah just what we need by jfdawes · · Score: 1

      You're mostly correct that this is all good - and I suspect Kethinov might have had trolling on the ajenda somewhere, however it goes on to say in the article how the Navy was all excited that they could [produce five or six times as many missiles].

      (Yeah, I'm assuming that going from 30,000 pounds to 180,000 pounds means six times as many missiles when they also stated they would be able to use this stuff instead of nitro-glycerine for some other things ... but I'm also assuming that the other things were fun "Blow Stuff Up" types of things as well)

    7. Re:Yeah just what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just start by knocking you off....

    8. Re:Yeah just what we need by vacuum_tuber · · Score: 1

      AC wrote:

      Well death and destruction have always been more popular in this country than charity. It is always easier to beat someone else down than to build yourself up.

      You don't get out much, do you? You're dead wrong on both points if by "this country" you mean the U.S. The U.S. is the most charitable country in the world, and if you think people here tear each other down you certainly haven't spent any time in other countries more than maybe superficial vacations. All through latin America, for example, the primary form of competition is finding ways to prevent the competition from entering into or doing business. One of the big reasons the U.S. is so far ahead of so many other nations economically is that it was established on some work and behavior ethics that are, exceptions and aberrations notwithstanding, constructive, not destructive. Many other countries have an entirely destructive ethos determining the behavior of their people.

      --
      Look at the bright side: there's always seppuku.
    9. Re:Yeah just what we need by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Why do you need the hardware you have? You should sell it and give the money over to AIDS and/or cancer research.

      From you site.

      My setup:
      Architecture: x86
      Motherboard: Asus A7M266D, 30.5cm x 24.5cm
      Processors: Dual AMD Athlon MP 1200mhz Socket A
      Bus Architecture: 3xPCI 33-MHz 32-bit Slots, 2xPCI 66/33-MHz 64/32-bit Slots, 1xAGP Pro/AGP 4X
      FSB Speed: 200/266 MHZ
      System Memory: 512mb ECC PC2100 DDR
      Max Memory: 3.5GB registered or 2GB unbuffered (4 registered or 2 unbuffered DDR DIMMs)
      Max System Memory speed: 2.1GB/s
      Chipset: AMD-760MPX, North Bridge AMD-762, South Bridge AMD-768
      Graphics card: GeForce4 TI4200, 128MB DDR, 128-bit, DVI/TV-Out, 4X AGP
      Monitor1: Samsung 19" flat CRT
      Monitor2: 20" TV mirror display
      Soundcard: Soundblaster Audigy
      6" tall speakers with speaker-based headphone jack
      NIC: 3com Fast Ethernet 100mbps
      2 port 32 bit PCI USB 2.0 card
      4 port USB splitter
      4 Adaptoids and real n64 controllers
      1 Gravis Gamepad Pro
      Standard PS/2 keyboard
      Standard 5 button PS/2 mouse with scroll wheel
      16x write 32x read CD burner
      Award BIOS
      hda: 40gb 7200rpm FAT32 Windows 2000 Professional
      hdb: 20gb 7200rpm ext3 Debian Linux
      hdc: 80gb 7200rpm NTFS no operating system
      At work I use Knoppix Linux on a generic P4 machine

    10. Re:Yeah just what we need by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      How petty. I wonder how you feel about people running 64 bit machines for their own personal ego boost. Compared to that my setup is obsolete.

      If you must know, that setup is essentially a combination of computer parts I've gathered over the last 10 years. Some of it is extremely old. Most notably the case, the 20gb hard drive, and the 20" TV. I'd estimate I've spent no more than $3000 dollars on my hardware in the last decade (which is a generous figure) which averages out to $300 a year. How many of us on Slashdot can honestly say we only spend at max $300 on computer equipment a year?

      Oh wait, I forgot. You're probably still operating on a 386 because anything newer is just an indulgence to you. Forgive me.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    11. Re:Yeah just what we need by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Troll

      No. I have a large computer setup/network than you.

      I just don't go around telling others how to spend their money.

      You expect/want others to do things that you yourself will not do.

      Put up or shut up.

    12. Re:Yeah just what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point he was making, you twit, is that you bitch and moan about other people working on something other than a cure for cancer while you selfishly spend money on your computer instead of donating it to the cure for cancer.

      Welcome to Hypocrisyville, population: you.

    13. Re:Yeah just what we need by Kethinov · · Score: 1

      I'll see your hypocrite accusation and raise you a false assumption.

      The statement I'm making is not that everyone should spend their personal hard-earned money for the promotion of (medical) science, which you both seem to be assuming I meant. The statement I'm making is that we don't need to be spending money on weapons. I couldn't care less what you spend your money on. What I do care about is what our country is spending money researching. Missile propellent is not exactly something we need.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    14. Re:Yeah just what we need by Slashdot+Fool · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the whole "missile propellant == satellite launch propellant" thing.

    15. Re:Yeah just what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How wonderful that you have solved that problem. Why with the vast amount of intellect you possess, you could solve all of our problems and save us the time and expense of research. You make the assumptions that there is no need for weapons and that we should all just get along. Take a close look at the membership of the United Nations and tell me how many of those people place the same value on life that you do. Further, we generally see technological improvments from the money we spend on military research. That hard research finds its way to public life in every way imaginable. If you worry about spending extra money on medical research let us reduce the amount spent on welfare and other various entitlements.

    16. Re:Yeah just what we need by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Your right. The US has done no research on cancer or AIDs. We can put a man on the moon but...
      Wait the US does spend money on Cancer and AIDs research. Humm so this is a load of self loathing rubbish.
      I really doubt that the goal was to make missle fuel. It was to make a chemical. That chemical can be used for many things. Glad to see has been moded down to a 1.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Worse of two evils? by MrsPReDiToR · · Score: 1

    If it converts sugar into anything it could have a beneficial effect in that sugar comsumption is known to 'assist' people in gaining weight. Start using the sugar supplies to make weapons then youre not going to have as much for making sweet foodstuffs. hence over time less obesity. However if you do make weapons out of sugars then youre enabling a means of reducing the consumer base anyway! Not a very nice way of reducing people's weight or morally ethical

    --
    It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.
  3. Resourceful little buggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The bacterial flora in my gut are also capable of producing a lethal nerve gas (lethal to the nerve cells of surrounding noses, at the very least).

  4. Seems promising! by shuz · · Score: 1

    I like the idea of using sugar as a propellant. Sugar is a very easily renewable resource and regular table sugar breaks down into carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. c12 h22 o11 which of course are all relatively friendly to our environment. I would like to see more cars run off of sugar based fuels IE ethanol.

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
  5. If were running missles off a sugar product.. by FishermansEnemy · · Score: 1

    ..does that mean that we will have Intercontiental Beerlistic Missles?

    --
    -- If you think my attitude stinks, you should smell my fingers.
  6. This explains something that has been bothering me by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I know why I fart like a space shuttle launch after eating Indian food. Guess I'd better not try lighting them.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  7. Two thoughts on this by chia_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First thought...just how much of this propellant can be produced by these microbes? It really seems like you'd need quite a bit to launch a missle. Can this be done from the work of some microbes?

    Second...people will complain about how money is being spent on military research, but let's look at the positive here. It's a precursor to lowering colesterol. Who knows when we'll be working on developing some sort of funky things to melt enemy tires or something and come up with a compound that kills only cancer cells and leaves all other cells unharmed. It's exciting in an odd sort of way.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Two thoughts on this by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the microbes follow the standard bacterial exponential growth curve in ideal conditions, so I don't think getting enough microbes is going to be an issue.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    2. Re:Two thoughts on this by tigeba · · Score: 4, Funny

      "First thought...just how much of this propellant can be produced by these microbes? It really seems like you'd need quite a bit to launch a missle. Can this be done from the work of some microbes?"

      Replace "propellant" with "alcohol" and "launch a missle" with "supply the fans at an NFL game" and proceed to ponder your question.

  8. non-natural?! by 1isp_hax0r · · Score: 1
    ...have created strains of bacteria which can convert certain types of sugars into a non-natural synthetic material, called butanetriol, which is...

    There is something in that sentence that bothers me. Can you guess? Thats right. That butanetriol is non-natural!

    If sugars are natural and bacteria are natural, how can their interaction produce something non-natural? Why have scientists come along and declared this very natural process a unnatural?

    --
    my cat's breath smells like cat food
    1. Re:non-natural?! by mbrinkm · · Score: 1

      My guess on why they would call it non-natural is that they altered the DNA of the microbes to produce the gas.

      --
      "Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats." --Howard Aike
    2. Re:non-natural?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The natural/un-natural dichotomy has always been more or less arbitrary. I'm of the opinion that it is a useless distinction anyway.

    3. Re:non-natural?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what they're saying is that the compound is never found in nature. It exists only as a result of chemical processes humans conduct, and now as a result of bacteria which humans altered from their original form.

  9. Stage trees by nukey56 · · Score: 1

    Stage trees anyone?

  10. Rocket propelant, not just for killing anymore! by doublebackslash · · Score: 1

    There are other uses for this sort of thing.
    The shoesting budget on which it was created ($62M 40M pounds, for those of you across the pond) could have been better spent if the launch was cheaper.
    Perhaps holding out hope would have better chances of paying off if they had another million that didn't go into fuel.
    I feel that this sort of technology should be given lots of support. Projects like beagle2 define my favorite human drive, the drive to explore and learn. Just beacuse this could kill someone is no reason to dis it.

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  11. Fuel for Mars Return Trip by bryceh1 · · Score: 1

    Assuming that the obvious difficulties of maintaining bacteria in a hostile environment such as Mars could be surmounted it seems that this biotechnology would serve as the basis for manufacturing the fuel needed for the return flight leg of a manned Mars mission. Would have to supply carbon in a form other than sugar, perhaps all that frozen C02? And let's not forget about the moon, produce massive amounts of rocket fuel there in order to send the astronauts to Mars in the first place.

    1. Re:Fuel for Mars Return Trip by Red+Rocket · · Score: 1


      There are a whole lot of bacteria that wouldn't consider the Martian environment hostile. Engineers expend a lot of effort sterilizing Mars landers so as not to contaminate the Martian environment with terrestrial life forms. It would be a scientific mistake to send a vat of earthly bugs up to Mars when one of the biggest questions to be answered is whether life has evolved there and what form(s) it takes. Even if, in the future, we discover life there, we would still want to avoid contamination for a long time until the environment was thoroughly researched and studied and we understood the effects and Martian viability of terrestrial bacteria. We might even want to select or engineer the bacteria specifically to ensure that it could not survive outside of containment on Mars.

      --
      - Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
  12. further implications... by Guano_Jim · · Score: 1

    This might have implications for abiotic oil research.

    If microbes can produce proto-rocket fuel, is it such a stretch to believe they can create crude oil as well?

  13. The Military and Technology by i8a4re · · Score: 1

    I find it kind of ironic that there are soooo many people that want to bitch about any technological breakthrough or scientific achievment that has military application, yet the internet itself largely started due to the US military's network. The reason most of us on slashdot have multiple personal computers is the military pumped uncountable dollars into computer research and advancement because it helped them fight wars better. We would not have been able to put a man into space if it were not because of the military, and NASA probably wouldn't be able to put anything into space even today if not for the military due to the cost of lauch facilities (the USAF maintains and operates all launch facilities).

    The fact is that a very large number of the things we enjoy everyday is a direct result of the military. Yes, wars are bad. Yes, it'd be nice if we took all the money devoted to fighting wars and devoted it soley to pure scientific research and embetterment of society. But the (percieved) need to defend our way of life is a more immediate and stronger driving force in the government. Because of this, billions of dollars are dumped into research and, since we have not destroyed ourself yet, we have reaped many benefits from the military's research.

    --

    If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
  14. Changing the name to... by annisette · · Score: 1

    Rocket propellent would help the PR of these microbes. The conversation here seems to say missiles kill people (they do), so lets say rockets do not, they launch for exploration or research. Though busting a hole through the sky with very large rockets it is probably best to leave a steam trail than solid rocket fuel residue but they could be used as they are, boosters.

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  15. Re:Yeah just what we need, another troll on /. by snarkasaurus · · Score: 1

    Jeasus, don't you liberal wankers ever get tired of being wrong?

  16. More efficient than photosynthesis? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Sugarcane offers the highest photosynthetic efficiency (8% of insolation converted to chemical bonds in glucose) of any measured in plants. That's about the same as cheap solar PV cells, without the vastly higher costs of manufacturing and pollution from PV cells. Sugarcane is an interesting storage medium for the energy, with cheap, durable, lossless packaging, compared with the inefficiency of high voltage powerlines from PV farms. However, even the best fuelcells get only about 40% of the stored energy from ethanol from distilled sugarcane (rum), which might just equal the overall PV cells efficiency in competing PV/glucose solar systems.

    The little critters usually seem more efficient than the big ones. Is there a scalable (farmable) photosynthetic microbe species that beats the 8% sugarcane efficiency? Does it also offer the excellent carbon sequestration benefits of the sugarcane? Is it tasty?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  17. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You are the lucky recipient of the 500,000th positive mod point to be wasted on a "they should be working on a cure for cancer instead" troll! Tell him what he's won, Bob!

    Well, Lisa, our lucky winner Kethinov will have all work that previously would've been done to make other things in his life donated to the cause for cancer. His auto mechanic will begin working on a cure for cancer instead of fixing his car. His favorite restraunt chefs will be joining the cause as well. His alumni association has been contacted, and all of his university professors from English to Biology to Statistics will be dropping all of their research too to start on the bold search for a cure to cancer because he has decreed that all other avenues of work are worthless as long as cancer does not have a cure.

    But wait, Bob, there's more!

    To avoid any slightest hint of hypocrisy, Kethinov has been fired from his current job which did not allow him to work towards the cure for cancer. Now he will be free to pursue any job which advances a cure for cancer.

    Congratulations!

  18. new weapons of mass destruction detected by -Maurice66- · · Score: 1

    2004 will be the year where the US launches the first balistic bacteria at al quada ;-]

    M

  19. Are you sure it's not necessary? by Libertarian_Geek · · Score: 1

    Don't take this comment to mean that I support or protest US involvement in Iraq. In some countries that the US helps, missles and other weapons are needed to get medicines, food, and supplies beyond the local warlords, and into the homes of the starving. Perhaps you should do an "Ask Slashdot" on how best to aid countries with medicine and supplies without the use of force while local warlords and/or dictators view the surpressing the aid as a means of keeping the population under their command. I can imagine that we COULD try to just call Pizza Hut and Walgreens to deliver but I can't seem to find the telephone numbers in some of those countries.

    --

    www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights

    www.fairtax.org