"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org
As long as we're losing our protective magnetosphere at the ongoing
demise of -.05%/year, as such that alone could become the worse news to
our frail DNA than whatever's global warming us to death. With applied
technology and spare energy, we can adapt ourselves to whatever's too
hot, too cold or too ocean rising wet, but cosmic and solar radiation is
an entirely different matter, as having spare energy simply isn't going
to protect your frail DNA unless it's in the form of being artificially
shielded from the polluted sky, that's no longer of sufficient density
in order to defend yourself from the influx gauntlet of all that's
becoming dark and nasty (including the TBI worthy dosage that's derived
from our very own nearby moon).
What's so terribly wrong with blocking off roughly 3.5% of our sun, as
well as having gotten rid of most of that rather pesky gravity/tidal
force, plus having eliminated the secondary IR/FIR that's also a touch
global warming us to death at the same time?
Wouldn't it also be a darn good thing, for getting that horrific orb of
gamma and hard-X-rays a little further away from us?
At four times the distance, we'd have roughly 1/16th of that lethal
dosage to deal with, and due to such efforts having accomplished nearly
zilch worth of centripetal related force is why we'd have accomplished a
mere fraction of what's pertaining to tidal energy influx that's keeping
us a little too extra warm (inside and out).
Establishing the LSE-CM/ISS (along with its tether dipole element that's
still capable of reaching to within 4r of Earth) is still perfectly
doable, and actually much better off for such being within the
protective shade of that moon, and otherwise getting full-earthshine
illuminated as being more than ideal for such a lunar space elevator and
interplanetary depot/gateway of efficient operations.
Where's the down side?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG