Space elevator now po

In message , Brad Guth
writes
Lunar Space elevator (delivering non-reactive lunar soil to moon L1
for a cash of nonreactive shielding)

Moon L1 elevator had ott to work quite nicely with the technology at
hand.

That's "cache", I think. I'm not sure what "ott" means, but OTT
certainly describes your style.
And getting a space elevator to work on the Moon will be quite a trick.
L1 isn't a stable position, and I'd be surprised if there are any stable
stationary orbits.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

First of all, I certainly will remove your fine name entirely, as we
wouldn't want folks to think you've been communicating with the likes
of myself.

BTW; I believe you did mention, more than once, that the lunar surface
represented nearly immeasurably little if any secondary radiation. I
also believe your assessment of our astronauts alluding the bulk of
the Van Allen zone is equally somewhat skewed as well, though of just
the in between travels, excluding anything Van Allen and/or even those
EVAs is worth a whole lot more than 20 mrem/day.

Obviously you're in no position to divulge specific information
(nondisclosure and all that sort of cloak and dagger stuff, I
understand). Anyway, here's a little more on my next great idea that's
lunar related, somewhat like the Moon-SAR imaging thing, so I'm sure
if I can manage to keep your name out of it, that you will not have
much if anything to say about space elevators, even if it includes
some of that clumping lunar soil.


Lunar L1 (LL1) Space elevator

Delivering Jay's nonreactive lunar soil to Lunar L1 (LL1), for
establishing a zero gravity cash on demand of radiation shielding
mass.

Within existing technology, taking lunar soil as needed for radiation
shielding can be robotically collected and then merely space elevated
to lunar-L1, thus alleviating any future need of manned expedition
missions having to launch such added mass from Earth, and/or otherwise
having to set down on the moon simply to obtain the necessary amounts
of lunar substance, where only then subsequently having the
considerable obligation of re-launching off the moon along with all
that added mass, that which would only complicate matters, obviously
at considerable added risk to any or all crew members and rather
noticeably depleting mission fuel reserves.

Whereas with having sufficient tonnage being already positioned at
LL1+, all one would need to do is match up with the LL1 orbit,
interface with some form of delivery conveyer designed to move the
necessary tonnage onboard your spacecraft, as to be loaded and
distributed within the walls surrounding those sections most occupied
by yourself and crew.

Since this transfer of reasonably good shield mass is all accomplished
at zero gravity, there's little energy expended, other than the LL1
elevator that presumably would be solar powered.

A Lunar to LL1+ elevator had ott to work quite nicely with the
technology and of alloys at hand, especially since we're dealing with
1/6th gravity and, there's certainly no atmospherics nor much of
anything related to friction and, darn few commercial craft
circumventing the moon. Super alloys that exist today could be
utilized for this sort of lunar space elevator, especially if the
primary function is for relocating the 3.41 g/cc of lunar soil density
at perhaps a maximum rate of 1 kg/sec into position at LL1+ (though 1
kg/minute should be more than sufficient), as for formulating the
space elevator anchor that's sustaining the cable tension, but also
for providing the cash of surplus soil for use as radiation shielding,
not to mention whatever lunar mineral mining that would only become
the next best thing to space sex.

Since one of our resident space radiation wizards is so absolutely
correct about just about everything there is to know regarding our
moon and of space radiation, this is where I'm giving credit where
credit is due, such as where one of his most recent discoveries and
thereby contributions is having to do with understanding that bone dry
yet so thoroughly clumping lunar soil, that which not only reflects
light at roughly 5 times greater if you're standing on the moon as
opposed to otherwise being viewed from Earth or imaged by the likes of
Hubble, but mostly that this terrific lunar soil stuff has also become
the one and only inert or least reactive resource of worthy density
that's apparently incapable of creating any significant amounts of
secondary radiation (apparently it's sort of like hydrogen except
quite dense and thereby compact).

Thus, it's become my village idiot idea that we should focus this
space elevator technology upon the moon and of getting that terrific
lunar stuff to it's L1, as where such an elevator would accomplish
what we simply can't otherwise justify, that is to launch a manned
mission having sufficient shielding, at least not in any one step and
of no matters what, we simply can't launch much of anything from Earth
without creating nearly 100 times as much CO2, that's to be left
behind to impact upon Earth's global warming.

I must say that I've learned so much from the likes of so many others
within the collective, such as to how refreshingly warm, fuzzy and
friendly, and apparently of there being such low cosmic and galactic
radiation in free space, especially lunar space, not to mention that
our astronauts seem to have become the one and only folks knowing of
how to evade the bulk of the Van Allen zone of death, as well as their
surviving extended EVAs (during a somewhat solar maximum phase no
less).

These following two pages are only a beginning, as they'll be
corrected and/or edited to show the best information I can find, which
has often been easier said than accomplished, especially when I must
learn so much wisdom from the likes of so many of NASA's collective of
space wizards. So, even if we must realistically utilize somewhat
greater amounts of that lunar soil (say 341 g/cm2 or even 1024 g/cm2),
at least it'll all become situated at zero gravity, where it'll be
relatively safe to transfer and, best of all, there'll be no further
CO2 generated for Earth.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
|
| First of all, I certainly will remove your fine name
| entirely, as we wouldn't want folks to think you've been
| communicating with the likes of myself.

If that were the case I wouldn't be conspicuously conversing with you on
Usenet.

I'm asking you to remove my name from your site because on it you have
misrepresented my statements. What you have attributed to me is the result
of *your* attempt to reconcile my statements with your beliefs, and in some
cases you have simply fabricated ideas and claimed I espoused them. If, on
my web sites, I claimed you lived in a mental institution, or that you
tortured animals, or other false claims, I'm sure you would adamantly seek
to have those hypothetical lies redressed.

| BTW; I believe you did mention, more than once, that the lunar surface
| represented nearly immeasurably little if any secondary radiation.

Upon being questioned on that point, I qualified the term "immeasurable" to
refer to a scale of biological significance, not to mere detectability. I
gave an analogy to starlight to illustrate and clarify my point. You
ignored that completely. Jonathan Silverlight, whose statements you say
"corrected" my assessment, has specifically disavowed that his statements
had -- or were intended to have -- that effect. Yet you continue to
represent that he has done so.

Further, regarding my statements about the lunar surface and secondary
radiation, I have explained my statement numerous times since you misquoted
it. I will do so again, and I expect that you will pay attention.

First, I have never claimed that the lunar surface material itself has some
property which makes it impervious to incoming primary radiation, nor which
results in some inability to produce secondary radiation. You merely drew
that conclusion after misunderstanding my description. Any statement along
these lines that you attribute to me is false. My claim is precisely that
the amount of secondary radiation emitted by the lunar surface UNDER NORMAL
CONDITIONS OF IRRADIATION is not biologically significant for short-term
exposure.

If the conditions of irradiation are changed -- such as occurs during a
major solar particle event -- the amount of secondary radiation will be
significant (i.e, have an effect on an organism). I hasten to point out
that this is of little importance since the increase in secondary radiation
is caused by (and therefore accompanied by) a dramatic increase in *primary*
radiation, which will still have by far the most effect on the organism. Of
course, if you're in a bunker of some kind covered with lunar material, and
the material is of sufficient thickness to attenuate both primary and
secondary effects, then you will be safe.

If the duration of the stay is considerable, then secondary radiation from
the lunar surface material itself will have a measurable biological effect.
But again, the effects of primary radiation will always overshadow them.

The fluctuation in ambient solar radiation (*not* solar particle events)
that occurs between the solar minimum and solar maximum does not produce a
measurable *difference* in the amount of secondary radiation emitted by the
lunar surface material.

At all times, however, secondary radiation from the lunar surface is
*detectable*, meaning that we can devise instruments to note its presence
even in very, very small amounts.

| I also believe your assessment of our astronauts alluding
| the bulk of the Van Allen zone is equally somewhat skewed
| as well

Whether you believe my opinion is "skewed" is irrelevant. I explained to
you at length the difference between traversing the Van Allen belts and
orbiting inside them, as well as the difference between the Van Allen belts
and the environment were NASA studied orbiting a solar observatory. I have
attempted on numerous occasions to educate you about these important
differences, but you never posted *that* at your web site.

| though of just the in between travels, excluding anything Van
| Allen and/or even those EVAs is worth a whole lot more than
| 20 mrem/day.

I explained to at length the fallacy in how you computed daily dosages. You
have not responded to it, nor have you seen fit to note it on your web site
or even to acknowledge that people have attempted to explain it to you.

If you continue to ask people to correct you, it would be polite if you
listened to them when they attempted to do so.

| Obviously you're in no position to divulge specific information
| (nondisclosure and all that sort of cloak and dagger stuff, I
| understand).

I'm under absolutely no agreement not to divulge information to you. I have
"divulged" important information regarding your arguments to you at length
here. Is that consistent with operating under non-disclosure agreements?
But it's as if you hear only what you want to hear, even if it was never
said.

| Anyway, here's a little more on my next great idea that's
| lunar related, somewhat like the Moon-SAR imaging thing, so I'm sure
| if I can manage to keep your name out of it, that you will not have
| much if anything to say about space elevators, even if it includes
| some of that clumping lunar soil.

You can't resist those little rhetorical jabs, can you?

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Brad Guth
writes
Lunar Space elevator (delivering non-reactive lunar soil to moon L1
for a cash of nonreactive shielding)

Moon L1 elevator had ott to work quite nicely with the technology at
hand.

That's "cache", I think. I'm not sure what "ott" means, but OTT
certainly describes your style.
And getting a space elevator to work on the Moon will be quite a trick.
L1 isn't a stable position, and I'd be surprised if there are any stable
stationary orbits.


How about just giving the raw/rough numbers, as in how much cable and
of how much +/- variation we're having to deal with.

Since the moon isn't rotating itself all that fast and, it's nearly
always facing Earth center of gravity +/- 0.0001 or lesser degrees, so
how far off could the ME-L1+ space anchor drift about and, so what?

Would the lunar surface anchor need to be moved about (no tower mind
you)?

http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-L1-elevator.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com

In message , Jeff Root
writes
Brad Guth wrote:

Since the moon isn't rotating itself all that fast and, it's nearly
always facing Earth center of gravity +/- 0.0001 or lesser degrees,

Take a look at this GIF animation of the Moon, the August 10th
Astronomy Picture of the Day:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030810.html

The libration is far more than +/- 0.0001 degree.

In fact it is 6.28 degrees in the east-west direction, and
6.68 degrees in the north-south direction, measured from
Earth's center.

Your estimate was off by more than four orders of magnitude.

I wonder where Brad got his number from. And I've thought of another
reason why the L1 point will move (it isn't stable in the ideal case,
but we seem to be ignoring that)
The Moon's orbit is elliptical, varying from 226 000 miles to 252 000
miles. That will have quite an effect on the length of the piece of
string between the Moon and the station.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk