Even though our moon is a bit necessary for sustaining our grand
ruse/sting of the century, it has also been responsible on the long haul
for a share of our global warming fiasco. But fortunately we've become
such good wizards and rusemasters that I believe we can fix that with
yet another moon.
Being global warmed to death by our moon
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a5375f416ad978
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...smart&p=1/1141
Global warming influx via our moon is a bit of a short term stretch,
whereas there's obviously not all that much of our IR reflective moon to
work with, as per the fractional area of the sky it represents, but
otherwise on the long haul it has been much closer and thereby a whole
lot more imposing in the past, and it has been nearly that of a
continuous resource of IR, plus having always caused a great deal of
terrestrial friction (inside and out), and quite possibly being
responsible for a good portion of having initiated and sustained our
badly failing magnetosphere.
I'd actually liked these numbers of Roger Coppock's, on behalf of
establishing that artificial sun shade.
Let's run some numbers on this idea . . .
The solar constant is ~1367 Watts per Meter squared
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
Global Warming is now about 3 watts per meter squared,
which is 0.2% of the solar constant.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/
(Global Warming will quadruple in a century or two.)
The cross sectional area of the Earth is 125,000,000 km^2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Constant
The area of sunshade in orbit needed to remove the current
global warming is, therefore roughly .002 * 125,000,000 km squared
or 300000 km squared.
However, as long as the cost, time required or risk factors are hardly
if ever a consideration on behalf of going for establishing those
rad-hard and essentially meteorite proof habitats within our moon, or on
behalf of accomplishing Mars that's in certain other ways worse off, or
going for that of whatever's much further away (such as Titan or some
other godforsaken planet or moon), in that case, why not merely relocate
Sedna into Earth L1 (in place of our old and badly in need of a
replacement SOHO, with ACE not all that far behind), as then we'd have
ourselves a nifty outpost along with having accomplished shade to burn,
and not to forget lots more ice to boot.
In fact, the ice of Sedna itself could rather easily become the reaction
thrusting source (solar boosted super-boilers for creating the horrific
expansion into less than vapor and thereby accomplishing extremely good
h2o--ion vapor of thrust exit velocity) for the task of keeping Sedna
within that halo orbit. If Sedna wasn't allowed to spin, just sitting
within that halo worth of Earth L1, at least the side of Sedna facing
towards Earth should remain icy, and you'd also have a little better
gravity while walking about the equator of Sedna.
BTW; if need be, we could use thermal nuclear plus laser boosted cannons
of blasting solid icebergs into space as being our reaction thrusters,
or perhaps tethered GSO thrusters for accommodating the halo
station-keeping demands of sequestering Sedna for our benefit.
Regulating Earth's temperature via moving that frozen 1800 km orb (a
shade that's capable of 5.0868e6 km2) that's supposedly worth nearly
half it's volume as being of some kind of ice, whereas shifting that
sucker from side to side or up/down within the efficient halo zone could
thereby allow unregulated burning of our fossil oil, coal and natural
gas, along with our pillaging and burning down the remainders of
whatever pesky rain forest, and for all of that to continue unchecked
until there's nothing left, except people to burn, and even for that we
could always start off with burning Muslims.
Even when all of Sedna's ice is gone, there should still be something
better than 1e6 km2 worth of solar shade, and even of that much could be
intentionally navigated so as to benefit only our interest. That'll
show those Islamic heathens who's the alpha-dog ultimate boss of this
Earth.
What's the halo management down-side worth, of the reaction thrust
requirement per year if applied on behalf of station-keeping Sedna
within the Earth L1 zone?
This swag of mine may need a little rework but, I don't believe it would
be much greater than a kgf/tonne/year, and there are naysayers
flatulating within this anti-think-tank of a Usenet from hell that
already outperform that much.
Come to think about it, this relocating of little old icy Sedna might
even get myself nominated by the likes of ENRON, EXON, GE and GW Bush
himself, for a Nobel Prize.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG