Thread: How cool is VL2
View Single Post
  #29  
Old March 4th 07, 01:08 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.physics,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.astro
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default How cool is VL2

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:943268f4698ce93ff8aabb231b766a9b.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Usenet topic: Manned Venus Flyby

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...ea67d6de4199a9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby


Venus L2 need not be a flyby, but rather a 19 month destination
stop-over. However, you're not going to get yourself very hot, much
less roasted to death. All that's needed is a good cache of TP plus
lots of beer and pizza that'll last between those mostly robotic
resupply missions. The VL2 radiation environment that's potentially
lethal to our frail DNA isn't nearly as bad off as being with ISS, as it
manages to avoid the ever expanding SAA contour, and there's certainly
going to be less (nearly 50% less) of the cosmic influx trauma to deal
with, not to mention VL2 not having that gamma and hard-X-ray producing
moon to deal with.

By one analogy of our 1AU raw sunlight spectrum of UV to IR being worth
1390 w/m2:
However, if the earthshine/planetshine upon average IR radiance is worth
266 w/m2, adding half the other direct influx, as having been shuttle
instrument reported as 1354 w/m2 = 266 + 677 = 943 w/m2, as
representing the external energy budget of what ISS or most any other
terrestrial orbiting platform has to externally contend with.

A correction for the following worth of moon's L1 IR = 2 w/m2 (not a big
factor, but it's there to behold at least 50% of the time)

If it weren't for the nighttime portion of each ISS orbit, as such
they'd be summarily roasted to death long ago, and it's actually worse
off at the moon's L1 because of the same 1390 w/m2 potential plus a
moonshine surface radiance of IR that I believe has to be worth nearly
695 w/m2, thereby being at roughly 58,000 km away from that IR emitting
surface might suggest 1390 + 2 = 1392 w/m2 (not to forget about a little
something extra that's contributed from earthshine IR). With hardly any
amount of that time spent at the moon's L1 as for being shaded by way of
Earth or by the moon itself (in other words, you'll have to provide an
artificial shade 97.6% of the time according to Clarke Station analogy,
or else get yourself prepaired to sweat like a slow roasted pig in a
can).

As opposed to the solar radiance being less than 390 w/m2 at Venus L2,
whereas the VL2 halo station-keeping orbit is upon average receiving
perhaps as little as 41% of the ISS thermal trauma. Even if there's an
extra 1 w/m2 of IR planetshine to deal with (of which there isn't),
that's still only 391 w/m2, and if that's not Bigelow POOF or most any
other space depot certified, then perhaps nothing is. The better
argument could obviously be said for establishing Earth L2 (EL2) space
depot, but clearly we're not smart enough or otherwise having enough
rad-hard DNA as for pulling that one off any better than we could
accomplish the moon's L1. I guess we don't actually have "The Right
Stuff".

Therefore, once again I may have to agree entirely with the intelligent
mindset of Dr. Van Allen, that the vast majority of open space travels
(external to our protective magnetosphere) and of such other planetary
or moon expeditions needs to be given as much robotics as possible, that
is since our going terribly fast isn't an option and unless we can
affordably launch and sustain a sufficient physical shield against the
solar, moon and cosmic sorts of lethal radiation trauma that tends to
summarily nail our frail DNA (not to mention having to defend ourselves
from nearly all directions, as from those pesky fast moving debris
encounters of the potentially lethal kind), as such robotics are just
about exactly what the doctor ordered, the same as having been insisted
by Dr. Van Allen.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG