terraforming

Some web resources about terraforming:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Emfogg/
http://www.astrobiology.com/terraforming.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming
http://www.thinkquest.org/library/si...raforming.html

Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel:
619-5610814 :
alternative email:
URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn

Roger Bagula,
Can I add a little something extra as to terraforming our moon?

Actually, I have hundreds of questions with respect to what our moon
could have to offer.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Brad Guth wrote:
Roger Bagula,
Can I add a little something extra as to terraforming our moon?

The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one. At the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time. Once that air is gone, it is gone, and
cannot be recovered.

Actually, I have hundreds of questions with respect to what our moon
could have to offer.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

"Alfred Montestruc" wrote in
oups.com:


Brad Guth wrote:
Roger Bagula,
Can I add a little something extra as to terraforming our moon?

The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one. At the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time.

"Relatively short" only in a geological sense. The "half-life" of a lunar
atmosphere is measured in the thousands of years.

Once that air is gone, it is gone, and
cannot be recovered.

For any civilization advanced enough to give the moon an atmosphere in the
first place, it would be child's play to replenish the atmosphere by the
fraction of a percent per year necessary to keep it there.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Alfred Montestruc" wrote in
oups.com:


Brad Guth wrote:
Roger Bagula,
Can I add a little something extra as to terraforming our moon?

The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one. At
the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time.

"Relatively short" only in a geological sense. The "half-life" of a
lunar
atmosphere is measured in the thousands of years.

Which is the sort of time scale that you engage in when terraforming.

It would take about that long to add the atmosphear.


Once that air is gone, it is gone, and
cannot be recovered.

For any civilization advanced enough to give the moon an atmosphere
in the
first place, it would be child's play to replenish the atmosphere by
the
fraction of a percent per year necessary to keep it there.


From where?

Regardless the N2 is in short supply in terms of avalability of atoms
in the solar system, and when they escape from an atmosphear, they are
not recoverable in any practical manner.

Sealed habitats would lose less, and need less N2 or O2 or H20 for a
given weight of plants or animals. In the earth's atmosphear I think
you can see that air above about 250 feet off the ground is wasted
other than as radiation shielding. A few million pressureized habitats
will be safer in the long run IMHO.

"Alfred Montestruc" wrote in
oups.com:


Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Alfred Montestruc" wrote in
oups.com:


Brad Guth wrote:
Roger Bagula,
Can I add a little something extra as to terraforming our moon?

The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one. At
the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time.

"Relatively short" only in a geological sense. The "half-life" of a
lunar
atmosphere is measured in the thousands of years.

Which is the sort of time scale that you engage in when terraforming.

It would take about that long to add the atmosphear.

Duh. This is a project for civilizations that think long-term.

Once that air is gone, it is gone, and
cannot be recovered.

For any civilization advanced enough to give the moon an atmosphere
in the
first place, it would be child's play to replenish the atmosphere by
the
fraction of a percent per year necessary to keep it there.


From where?

From whence they choose - remember, we are talking about a civilization
capable of placing an earth-like atmosphere on the moon in the first place.

Regardless the N2 is in short supply in terms of avalability of atoms
in the solar system, and when they escape from an atmosphear, they are
not recoverable in any practical manner.

Why do you need N2? Any inert buffer-gas will do.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one. At the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time.

"Relatively short" only in a geological sense. The "half-life" of a lunar
atmosphere is measured in the thousands of years.

I saw that episode of "Space: 1999"! It came and went in a day- complete
with rain!

I'll bet *that* played havoc with the corrosion inhibitors on Moonbase
Alpha's skin!

Scott Hedrick wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
The moon will lose an earthlike atmospheare if it is given one.
At the
heat flux rate from the sun it sees the gas will leak off in a
relitivly short amount of time.

"Relatively short" only in a geological sense. The "half-life" of a
lunar
atmosphere is measured in the thousands of years.

I saw that episode of "Space: 1999"! It came and went in a day-
complete
with rain!


I wanted to see more than one or two episodes of that show. Sigh.

Still, the rate of loss of the atmosphere will be governed by physics,
not by the whim of a screen writer. And it will be on the order of
hundreds to thousands of years.

I'll bet *that* played havoc with the corrosion inhibitors on
Moonbase
Alpha's skin!

Brad Guth wrote:
Actually, I have hundreds of questions with respect to what our moon
could have to offer.

Now, are you talking about a moon that looks like Earth's moon now, or a
moon that looks like Mars, or a moon that looks like Venus?

Sticking affordably close to home, our Earth moon is absolutely chuck
full of exactly what humanity needs the most; that being energy.

However, first things first; Our moon needs an atmosphere, although not
all that much and certainly not persay for humans to breath. Creating
and sustaining a lunar atmosphere could start out as CO2/Rn, eventually
becoming entirely robotic with a rather nifty byproduct of extracting
He3, while otherwise creating basalt micro-balloons and terrific
fibers.

Creating composite tether(s) of 4.84 GPa requires a process of burning
basalt on the moon, or rather just something short of burning basalt.

Solar energy conversion need not be costly nor all that complex,
especially as per situated upon the moon. A little somewhat environment
testy but, certainly not a problem for robotics.

Direct thermal conversion and storage into a well insulated storage
tank of water or perhaps h2o2 isn't exactly rocket science. Possibly an
existing geode pocket may hold the key to energy storage. Otherwise, as
stored energy into somewhat massive flywheels is another perfectly
viable manner of keeping terawatts available on demand.

The maximum possible thermal conversion is supposedly 59% of whatever's
available. However, taking roughly a little better than half of that as
to what a solar sterling engine process cycle can obtain and lo and
behold, we're at 33% of 1.4 kw, thus 462 watts per m2 of concentrated
energy, and even if that were cut by another 25% affords 346 watt/m2.

Since the source of said energy is essentially free, and upon the moon
it's certainly unobstructed and continuous for half the time,
represents that a 1e6 m2 solar reflector farm should contribute better
than 300 MW for accomplishing whatever task. Although, if the process
were to be primarily that of melting basalt, then the direct focus of
the solar energy upon the raw basalt furnace or kiln should be
somewhere near 50% thermal conversion efficiency. thus 700 MW would
become available for such direct process heating, of which being
situated within such an already roasting and near perfect vacuum
environment is only going to improve upon the kiln thermal insulation
and thus greatly improve upon the process throughput of melting volumes
of basalt tonnes per hour, that which melted basalt can be effectively
reassimilated/extruded into those continuous (4.84 GPa) fibers having
absolutely no atmospheric contamination whatsoever. Thus obtaining the
absolute purest form of basalt fiber anywhere in our solar system.

Of course, there's a rather nasty byproduct as to the process melting
of all that lunar basalt. Since I do not believe O2 contributes
anything to the GPa aspects of basalt, quite possibly the kiln process
can be modified as to entirely rid all of the associated O2, that being
a nasty byproduct of Oxygen(O2) that'll have to get released into the
environment. Since better than 50% of said basalt is supposedly O2, and
if persay the process of producing the basalt composite tether of such
continuous fibers were to be accomplished at a rate of 100 tonnes per
hour, that process is going to seriously contaminate the lunar
environment with roughly 50 tonnes of O2 per hour. That's 200,000
tonnes worth of O2 contamination per year as based upon processing
basalt into continuous fibers from just one 1e6 m2 solar farm that's
obviously limited to 4380 hours (- sunrise/sunset hours where the solar
farm may be physically limited as to redirect solar influx should
represent at least 4000 hours worth of 100% effective process time) of
what the available solar farm sunlight per year has to offer.

Of course, ridding basalt of O2 should only push the fiber GPa to
better than 9. In fact, processing almost anything in the absense of O2
should prove highly advantage. I mean to suggest; what is it about O2
that's all that great?

Unfortunately, in order to satisfy all of the mainstream status quo
freaks that never want anything to ever change, especially of anything
that'll lead into diminishing the value of their investments into oil,
coal and gas stocks, or thereby negatively impacting their 'cold-war
for profit' investments, whereas at somewhat greater expense the O2
contamination of the moon could be eliminated by simply burning it off
(just kidding).

However, once enough tether fiber has been created for the LSE-CM/ISS,
I see no valid reason why the solar conversion farms couldn't remain
online, in which case they'd be focused upon the burning/vaporising of
lunar basalt for the sole function of terraforming the moon into
obtaining and maintaining an atmosphere of mostly O2. I see nothing in
the laws of physics that would preclude the notion of retaining at
least a 0.1 bar environment, whereas at 1.623 m/s/s we should then be
able to aerodynamically land shuttles upon the moon. If need be, the
lunar atmosphere could be fortified with Rn and CO2 because, since it's
going to remain a dry as a bone and at a tenth the pressure, the likes
of Rn can be easily moonsuit excluded and/or filtered out, and even 100
fold the concentration of CO2 that's here on Earth shouldn't harly
matter, whereas the need to having abodes underground is still going to
remain the safety requirement, whereas those internal environments can
remain as free of CO2 an Rn as need be.

I'm fairly certain that I'm way over my level of observational
expertise, so please feel perfectly free as to explain in specific
numbers and/or by providing other correct details as to what's
possible, by way of your contributing better notions and proven methods
that don't have to be invented. The sooner we get something established
on and/or above the moon, and proceed with extracting and shipping the
processed He3 back to Earth, the sooner humanity will stop killing off
one another and the sooner we'll stop polluting mother Earth to a
fairlywell.

If humanity were to obtained as a whole, access to lots of cheap and
squeaky clean energy as to fusion burn, whereas no one has just cause
nor motive as to fight over said energy, the quality of life as we know
it should only improve and the environment of Earth can become
salvaged, and to even be thinking otherwise is absolutely sadistic and
as perverted as you can imagine.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
My old LSE-CM/ISS page:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm