What's not technically positive about relocating our moon to Earth's L1

Is the potential of our obtaining 3.5% solar isolation too much to ask
for?

Is having roughly 50% of tidal interactions as based upon a 24 hour
cycle too little?

Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
CMs that's insurmountable?

What portions and/or species of terrestrial life wouldn't become
better off at 96.5% solar insolation, having fewer or somewhat more
moderate plate tectonic issues, having lesser surface tides and
otherwise less overall environmental heating via mascon induced
friction of our 98.5% fluid Earth, as well as for having obtained a
slight reduction of IR/FIR influx and roughly 1/16th the Gamma
radiation that's associated with our naked anticathode moon?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

My silly goodness, our physically dark and somewhat salty moon is
still taboo/nondisclosure rated.

Even our NASA public simulator excludes our moon from ever seeing the
likes of big old and nearby Venus at the same time as our hocus-pocus
Apollo missions. How absolutely pathetic and/or hocus-pocus can we
possibly get?

Earth is 98.5% fluid, and it has that extremely nearby 7.35e22 kg
worth of a salty and totally anticathode moon that's causing most of
our global warming and otherwise sharing its Gamma and hard-Xrays.
Our moon needs to be situated at Earth's L1, along with a few of my
interactive tether CMs doing their thing.

Where's the physics or best available science telling us otherwise?
-
Brad Guth

Lagrangian point works with objects of negligible mass.
The moons too big, won't work.

The orbits would become unstable ending with the moon flying off in
who knows what direction....probably right towards my forehead.

Move on the plan B please.

On Aug 10, 8:53 am, GatherNoMoss wrote:
Lagrangian point works with objects of negligible mass.
The moons too big, won't work.

The orbits would become unstable ending with the moon flying off in
who knows what direction....probably right towards my forehead.

Move on the plan B please.

I never once said it would be easy, or that it would remain forever as
a passive orbit within Earth's L1.

What part about utilizing interactive tethers is over your head?

Be a good sport, and let us go back to Plan A.
- Brad Guth

To which L1 are you referring?

On Jun 20, 9:18 am, Igor wrote:
To which L1 are you referring?

Good grief; Earth's L1 (as looking directly at the sun). I believe
the likes of ACE and a few other satellites are currently plarked out
there.

What other L1 (that's between us and our sun) does Earth have?

The moon's L1 is always between the moon and Earth, and would still be
between itself and Earth even long after having relocated our moon out
to Earth's L1, although there would become an interesting Earth+moon
L1 that's much further out, as always between the moon and our sun.

I know, it's complicated. That's why we'll need one of those nifty 3D
interactive orbital simulators, in order to tell us exactly what to
expect.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing tethered
CMs that's insurmountable?
..
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.

Attempting to begin to do so now, however, would require a great
effort and expense. This would mean additonal energy use, doing more
bad for global warming than partially blocking the Sun with the Moon
would do good. If, through use of von Neumann machines, moving
something as heavy as the Moon were within the realm of possibility,
mining it to make a really thin aluminum foil sunshade having the same
diameter as the Moon would also be possible, and a lot easier.

I don't seriously think that reducing the intensity of the tides would
really do all that much to reduce loss of life due to earthquakes and
volcanoes. Plus, of course, it would mean we would have to be even
more scrupulous about soil erosion!

By the time we get anywhere remotely close to projects on such a
scale, though, we will have much easier ways to do things to improve
the quality of life of people on Earth. Solar power satellites, for
example, to replace fossil fuel consumption, are *trivial* compared to
your scheme. And, of course, we have an even *easier* way to achieve
the same result, known as nuclear power.

First, stop the global warming problem with nuclear power so that the
economy can work well. Then research fusion power, build solar power
satellites, colonize space, harvest the Kuiper Belt. These are simple,
conventional projects.

John Savard

On Jun 20, 6:06 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Is there something of physics or the science about utilizing
tethered CMs that's insurmountable?
..
Quadibloc:
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.

First of all, it's going to demand decades if not a good century in
order to manage the relocation of our moon to Earth's L1. If we wait
long enough before getting started, as such by then it will not hardly
matter, in part because of all the ongoing collateral damage of what
the existing global warming had thus far accomplished, as having by
then gone far past the point of no return.

1) Tethered CMs are not the least bit hocus-pocus, or in any way
outside of current expertise.
2) Most of the required energy and materials (perhaps 99%) are going
to be taken from the moon itself.
3) The benefits are potentially in the trillions per year, not to
mention the very salvation of life as we know it.

Attempting to begin to do so now, however, would require a great
effort and expense. This would mean additonal energy use, doing more
bad for global warming than partially blocking the Sun with the Moon
would do good. If, through use of von Neumann machines, moving
something as heavy as the Moon were within the realm of possibility,
mining it to make a really thin aluminum foil sunshade having the
same diameter as the Moon would also be possible, and a lot easier.

I don't seriously think that reducing the intensity of the tides
would really do all that much to reduce loss of life due to
earthquakes and volcanoes. Plus, of course, it would mean we would
have to be even more scrupulous about soil erosion!

Your massive "aluminum foil sunshade" as extracted from resources of
our moon isn't half bad, although otherwise that's quite a lot of the
usual infomercial spewing naysayism, that which actually doesn't make
hardly any sense at all. Clearly you're not even thinking inside the
box, much less outside. Our sun simply is not getting much hotter per
century, and you've also forgotten that Earth is 98.5% fluid, in that
what we see of surface tidal action isn't even 1% of what's otherwise
taking place due to having such a nearby mascon of 7.35e22 kg doing
its mostly internal tidal friction via orbital thing to mother Earth.

"it would mean we would have to be even more scrupulous about soil
erosion!" ?????

Soil erosion has always been another reason our oceans have been
rising. Having less tidal energy applied would only reduce the amount
of soil sluffing and otherwise moderate many other factors that's
contributing to soil erosion. This time your very own silly naysayism
is biting you in your pro-Zion butt.

By the time we get anywhere remotely close to projects on such a
scale, though, we will have much easier ways to do things to improve
the quality of life of people on Earth. Solar power satellites, for
example, to replace fossil fuel consumption, are *trivial* compared to
your scheme. And, of course, we have an even *easier* way to achieve
the same result, known as nuclear power.

First, stop the global warming problem with nuclear power so that the
economy can work well. Then research fusion power, build solar power
satellites, colonize space, harvest the Kuiper Belt. These are simple,
conventional projects.

John Savard

Your status quo collective mindset of lets wait and see, and otherwise
your hocus-pocus analogy of global warming is when a few decades from
now at having greater ocean levels, absolutely weird and massive
storms along with combined tidal damage (inside and out), plus
millions of folks and much of other life at risk of getting
exterminated each year, is when we'll know for a matter of fact that
the pro-Zionist mindset was actually at fault for most of everything
that had been bad about life on Earth, and we'll certainly know that
"John Savard" was one of their lead puppets in charge of getting the
most profit possible per KWhr, while leaving us in his toxic nuclear
dust that'll eventually cost us more than the limited good from such
applied energy. The all inclusive birth to grave attributes of
utilizing nuclear energy simply isn't worth the long term
consequences. Instead, we need to apply as much renewable forms of
energy as possible (such as the 40 kw/m2 foorprint worth of renewable
energy density), and of just about anywhere on Earth there's multi-
terawatts of that clean and renewable energy that's just going to
waste.

Your notions of $1/KWhr or greater cost of using nuclear energy is not
going to save us from ourselves, not even if bulk yellowcake is
imported from our moon or Venus. Solar shade or not, that pesky moon
of ours has got to go, as least out to Earth's L1.
-
Brad Guth

.
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.


It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
probes.

You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
anyway, so no big loss there.

On Jun 21, 1:09 pm, robert casey wrote:
.
When we reach the point where we can seriously consider moving the
Moon to the L1 point of the Earth-Sun system, then I suppose an
environmental impact statement can be made to determine if the
benefits are worth the effort.

It'd be easier to move a few larger asteroids to pass the Earth and Moon
system to increase the radius of Earth's orbit around the Sun. You'd
want to include the Moon so it stays the same orbit around the Earth.
The same way NASA and JPL does it to get a boost with planetary space
probes.

You might be able to reuse the asteroid by stealing some orbital energy
from Venus and passing it past Earth and the Moon again a few times. Or
just crash it into Venus to get rid of it, so it doesn't come back to
Earth to cause trouble here. It's way too hot to do anything on Venus
anyway, so no big loss there.

You don't know what's hot is or isn't. Of course, other Zion
rusemasters of your silly kind are pretty much stuck in the very same
status quo rut of infomercial crapolla that you've created for
yourselves.

Sedna is becoming available. We should utilize Sedna for all it's red
ice is worth.

BTW, our pathetic NASA does not utilize our moon for squat. It's
still taboo/nondisclosure rated, as otherwise having been excluded
from any of their orbital simulators that simply can not share an
honest look-see at Venus from the surface of our moon, as otherwise
available from the same time of those hocus-pocus Apollo missions...
-
Brad Guth