Relocate ISS to ME-L1

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is much easier said than done, but it's
doable.

Station-keeping ISS initially at roughly 60,000 to 64,000 km away from
the moon(center), this is where I believe the orbital speed of this
ME-L1 nullification zone becomes roughly 165 m/s.

At that sort of velocity, or nearly lack thereof all that much velocity,
is where a human could catch almost anything that'll land into a good
catchers mit.

For whatever it's worth, this topic is simply about the prospects of the
existing ISS being gently thrusted (somewhat of an extended re-orbit)
away from mother Earth, trekking unmanned through the Van Allen zone of
death and subsequently re-configured for realigning itself within the
ME-L1 zone of gravity nullification (mutual gravity-well or future
interplanetary gateway), where chances are there's so much less friction
involved, and absolutely zilch worth of gravity to work against, as such
the necessary amount(s) of thrust and related fuel requirement as for
sustaining the +/- 2.75% variance should be worth talking about,
especially as compared to the ongoing situation of keeping ISS from
falling entirely out of the sky upon orbiting below the 280 km mark of
no return.

ISS at ME-L1 represents no more of that nasty Van Allen zone fallout, as
having to keep ISS cruising towards the north and/or ducking below
whatever is sagging itself a bit much with regard to the Van Allen
'South Atlantic Anomaly' that isn't getting itself any smaller.
Supposedly this zone of death dips to nearly 155 miles (250 km) off the
deck, and they're still hoping that the next solar round of nasty TBI
worthy wind isn't going to further super-charge that already deadly
dip-zone into an even higher state of becoming ultra-lethal.

Perhaps if nothing else, ISS should have started charging medical
insurance companies for their clients going to ISS for obtaining their
kemotheraphy, as for even the secondary radiation of hard-X-Rays
arriving off the moon are going to become similar if not far worse off
than residing under the protective cloak of those Van Allen belts, and
certainly the cosmic TBI dosage should be interesting next to whatever
the sun tosses at them, along with a few of those nasty dust-bunny
impacts that'll be packing quite a kinetic punch at 30+km/s.

Of course being fully exposed to as much as 1200 km/s worth solar flak
isn't going to remain as any Apollo style walk in the park, although
after applying a few tonnes worth of that infamous clumping-moon-dirt
(apparently according to the expertise of apollohoax.com basalt as
become somewhat nonreactive as well as retro-reflective none the less)
as could be easily transported via tether pods up to ISS from the lunar
surface via their deployed underground seismic probe accommodating that
basalt/silica composite tether that shouldn't be ignored, especially for
whatever added worth of accommodating the much needed density that'll
shield ISS with good old basalt, of which that nifty 3+g/cm3 stuff can
start contributing to protecting those individuals inside of ISS.

Of course, since there shouldn't be gravity whatsoever for the ISS crew,
their extra shielded sleeping coffins/pods would have to be spun at a
sufficient rate as to induce an artificial source of gravity, thus bone
loss and mussel tone shouldn't be nearly as bad off as they're having to
deal with right now. Of course, if you get half a dozen of these coffins
spinning and each a little off balance could eventually shake a few nuts
and bolts lose, thus pairs of counter-rotating coffins might become
necessary as these units somewhat float about within the respective ISS
compartment.

This ISS topic has also been ongoing (without all that much respect)
within the BBC "Weird science", Brad Guth / h2g2 U206251


http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2....science.weird&,
and there's also
http://www.issfanclub.com/modules.ph...iewtopic&t=428
which may or may not stay put depending upon whatever their moderators
decide is sufficiently safe and sane about allowing folks to actually
think a little outside the box, as it seems they don't much like my
walls of words, regardless of their importance.

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


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

A nice slow trek through the Van Allen belts would fry the electronics
on ISS.

"Explorer" wrote in message
ups.com

A nice slow trek through the Van Allen belts would fry the electronics
on ISS.

I believe that's why we'd need to wrap all of those items up in
commercial aluminum foil, then apply rigging and otherwise ductape
everything else down for the extended reboost that should take no more
than a few days getting ISS through the worst portions of the Van Allen
zone of death. If need be, those most critical items can be stripped and
subsequently replaced with the superior likes of whatever survived those
Apollo missions that orbited the moon way back in those good old
fly-by-rocket lander days of the late 60s, as obviously they had no such
instrument problems nor even Kodak film degrade whatsoever.

However, can you be a little more specific as to the Van Allen radiation
exposure?

I've located the old Raytheon/TRW report that's suggesting along the
lines of 2e5 rads/year while situated behind 2 g/cm2, and that's merely
accepting 5.5e2/day or 23 rads/hr. However, that's not the average
dosage getting through such shielding, whereas perhaps as little as one
rad per hour might become the average. Unfortunately, there's no viable
way of applying 2 g/cm2 as for protecting those massive arrays of PV
cells, thus perhaps a nuclear power source can be installed, thereby
allowing for the dumping of those awkward PC panels before reboosting
out of orbit might further improve the odds of getting ISS through the
Van Allen gauntlet in one piece.

Actually, until ISS is re-occupied by crew, the amount of onboard energy
demand should not be 10% of what a three man crew involves, and perhaps
not 1% of the 10 man capability. At better than 1000 BTUs/crew member,
not having to counteract and sustain 3400 BTUs/hr should become worth at
least another savings of 1 KW/hr.

Besides, a good deal of whatever's ISS will soon require newer and
better instruments, plus a few kg worth of banked bone marrow per crew
member kept safely here on Earth, and thereby more of just about
everything that's capable of surviving solar influx as well as the
horrific amounts of secondary hard-X-Rays as continually derived off the
moon that's perhaps only 64,000 km away, and of absolutely no
significant substance in between that'll attenuate squat.

Since ISS would be accomplishing this trek through the 70,000 km Van
Allen expanse as unmanned, that sort of eliminates any biological
considerations. So, even if this portion of the mission required a week,
so what's the difference?

Then, as ISS continues along towards the moon, slowing down as the
gravity factor of mother Earth keeps influencing the ability of ISS to
entirely escape, at least up until arriving close to the ME-L1
sweet-spot of the mutual gravity-well as the gateway nullification spot,
as once getting ISS into this quiet gravity zone with as little outward
speed as possible being the case, this opportunity should make for
parking and of sustaining ISS into station-keeping mode rather simple,
and certainly a whole lot more energy efficient than orbiting Earth at
375 km.

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


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

Instead of focusing upon whatever's on or past Mars (no matters how
interesting includes the likes of Titan), I'll go for our moon any day
of the week, even if it's limited to what the ISS can manage. In fact,
the notion of impacting the moon for the pure and simple sake of
terraforming it into retaining a thin CO2/Rn atmosphere along with
absolute loads of vaporised basalt-O2 might become just the ISS ticket
to ride, short of moving ISS as per station-keeping within the ME-L1
nullification zone without a specific task in mind. At least
accommodating such intentional lunar impacts could actually arrive
within 24 hours, and just about any damn fool with a half-assed rocket
should be able to manage the shot.

Thanks to "DEEP IMPACT", I have obtained some new and improved ideas as
to the amount of vaporised basalt per tonne of whatever we can toss at
the moon, whereas I might now be suggesting upon a 1e6:1 ratio that
should start looking rather interesting on behalf of future robotic
instrument deployments.

DEEP IMPACT is expected to penetrate itself into forming a rather nasty
crater as it displaces and/or vaporises roughly 101,000 m3 worth of
whatever substance away from the target, accomplishing this task by
utilizing a mere bullet worth of an object having a total mass of 372 kg
(including it's 144 kg copper wedge) as it encounters the comet at 10.3
km/s. Eeven if the shot is a total miss, I've already learned something
that's been another one of those need-to-know tidbits as kindly withheld
from all the contributions by others that oddly claim knowing all there
is to know.

Frankly, I don't believe we should have been focused upon Mars, as even
that's simply too darn robotic spendy as well as lethal for the task of
getting folks safely to/from, and it even gets more lethal the longer
they say, not to mention our having to first invest another decade worth
of R&D along with the trillion plus price tag, and I believe that's with
nothing persay on the books as for keeping the likes of Mars from
infecting Earth.

Since we can't seem to biologically deal with what we've already got,
perhaps we should not be going out of our way looking for new and
improved ways of bringing back the sorts of robust life that has
survived the test of time for being summarily sub-frozen thousands of
years, thoroughly pulverised and otherwise TBI, especially if all of
whatever Mars had to offer didn't manage to kill it off. What sort of
super-antibiotic is it going to take once any portion of Mars arrives on
Earth?

For much the same reasons, I can't foresee our DNA/RNA physically going
to/from Venus, whereas the VL2 platform (TRACE-II as station-keeping at
Venus L2, with laser communication cannons) and of a few interactive
surface deployed probes seems safe enough, that plus whatever's situated
64,000 km away from our moon should be relatively safe except for
whatever actual lunar surface activities being somewhat physically
lethal and hosting the ideal morgue of spores and perhaps shells of
silica diatoms that have been collecting there since the beginning of
time. Perhaps that's another perfectly good reason why I'm focused upon
establishing the LSE-CM/ISS, as offering a damn good ISS replacement
that's a essentially a handy depot/gateway plus somewhat offering us the
one and only safe-house environment that's been doable within the
technology and expertise at hand.

I believe getting ISS to the ME-L1 zone is doable, then eventually
constructing an underground biological safe-house within the moon will
have to exist before replacing ISS or perhaps relocating it somewhere
along the tether dipole element, or perhaps as a secondary portion of
the lesser CCM interactive component of the master LSE, but until then
an abode within the ISS or eventually as a portion of the infrastructure
of the LSE-CM/ISS isn't half bad.

Getting rid of ISS once having done it's job isn't the problem. Keeping
ISS alive and kicking and situated where we might obtain the most bang
for our buck/euro seems important. But what do I know?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm
The basic LSE-CM/ISS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm


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

Apparently the notion of applied physics (science truth or consequences)
on behalf of appropriately utilizing ISS as for doing some actual
hard-science good for humanity isn't worth salt. Folks encharge would
rather have us contemplating places entirely unaccessible to humanity,
whereas even unproven and yet to be developed robotic recovery
expeditions will cost hundreds of billions and take decades to
accomplish, not to mention the pollution impact upon mother Earth.

You'd think that out of what ESA has been recently showing us about
Titan, of what that sub-frozen moon having such a terrific though
humanly nasty atmosphere that's at least darn good for getting fairly
substantial robotics onto the surface due to the tremendous density,
that which our laws of astrophysics and present knowledge base of
planetary/moon geology still offers us nothing as to why it's even
there, especially since the Titan gravity of 1.35 m/s is relatively
slight as to be holding onto 1.5 bar.

Too bad we still have nothing persay of our lunar surface environment,
other than what has been obtained from orbit and from the likes of KECK
that's offering greater than 10 fold better resolution than from the
latest SMART-1 mission. I believe even TRACE could image the moon at
better resolution than SMART-1.

Titan makes me think our moon @1.623 m/s worth of gravity should
certainly do a whole lot better off than its' reported 3e-15 bar, and it
seems that I'm not the first nor the last individual speculating as to
what's possible on behalf of improving that situation.

The notion of utilizing ISS as station-keeping @36~38r(62,568 ~ 66,044
km) with a tether anchored into the moon, having robotic tether crawlers
bringing up amounts of lunar basalt that can be released at perhaps 32r
~ 33r(55,616 ~ 57,354 km) should rather nicely impact at enough final
velocity as to vaporise 1e6:1 worth of surface basalt, of which better
than 50% of that is O2.

Apparently contributing feedback on anything having to do with our moon,
Venus or Sirius is off-limits, as in taboo 'nondisclosure' or bust, as
in NASA damage-control teams doing whatever it takes as to keeping the
mainstream media sufficiently threatened and/or snookered into
submission, or else. Perhaps that's where I'm getting my notions about
'FORUMS THAT SUCK'.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS


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

Here's the best I've got on the notion of using ISS as to essentially
pulverise the moon. That is if ISS or whatever other platform were being
tethered to the moon while keeping an outward gravity and partial
centrifugal pull against the moon, thus the basalt/silica composite
tether being sufficiently taut and usable for crawlers or whatever
robotics may utilize this tether as their guide and/or source of energy
transfer.

From the vantage point of roughly 64,000 km, I believe those deployed
chunks of basalt that were originally robotically retrieved from moon,
these items given a directive thrust towards the moon will have a good
1000 second drop, arriving at 16+km/s. I believe 16+km/s is sufficient
to vaporise almost anything.

If limited to the elements of basalt, a good number of O2 atoms would be
created. Fortunately this process could continue 24/7 at delivering
perhaps a tonne worth of impacts per hour, being most effective in lunar
nighttime or via brightly illuminated earthshine since this much cooler
lunar environment is going to help retain those recently created atoms
of various gas vapors. Some of what raw basalt contains is heavier than
O2, while the portion of sodium is roughly less than 3.5% that'll most
likely be extracted by the process of the horrific daytime heat and by
those nasty 600 km/s solar winds, which shouldn't hardly represent any
significant punch at the distance of Titan.

Raw basalt of 3 g/cm3, as processed into a basalt fiber: density = 2.7
g/cm3, contains little if any carbon, but offers these elements:
SiO2 58.7
Al2O3 17.2
Fe2O3 10.3
MgO 3.82
CaO 8.04
Na2O 3.34
K2O 0.82
TiO2 1.16
P2O5 0.28
MnO 0.16
Cr2O3 0.06

Of course, the porosity of certain basalt deposits may well contain the
likes of other nifty elements, such as trapped carbons, sulphurs,
krypton, xenon, even the likes of H2O and CO2 should not be excluded
from the opportunity of being released upon vaporising basalt.

Too bad our moon is so basalt/coal like dark, reflecting 11~12% is
clearly making the average landscape extra solar absorbing hot and
nasty, as well as being reactive and thus TBI nasty since the thin
atmosphere isn't buffering and/or deflecting squat, nor capable of
transferring all that much of whatever warmth around the globe. However,
if each tonne worth of impact(s) creates a sufficient number of atoms
that are free to move about the environment, as perhaps affording a 0.1%
thermal shift per 1000 tonnes vaporised, chances are that keeping this
process up and running might eventually improve the situation, as it
certainly can't otherwise hurt a darn thing.

My other related topic:
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"

This topic is related to the basic reasoning that our moon is simply
chuck full of interesting geology, representing an absolute ideal morgue
of just about all that our galaxy is comprised of, and of apparently
extremely valuable substances for the good of humanity.

Unlike Mars, Titan and so forth spendy and extremely time consuming
robotic expeditions, supposedly we can actually get ourselves to/from
our moon. At least until there's an actual fly-by-rocket lander you'd
trust, we should be capable of getting ourselves safely to/from the
likes of ISS or the LSE-CM/ISS situated roughly 64,000 km away from the
moon. From that vantage point all sorts of nifty lunar terraforming,
countless science, astronomy and interplanetary considerations can be
most easily mastered. Outside of most science and physics forums that
suck, there's hardly anything negative to honestly say about our moon.

Perhaps you can help, as so far I haven't discovered why the mutual
ME-L1 gravity-well (nullification zone) is so insurmountable or
forbidding. Placing a mostly robotic platform such as ISS within this
zone shouldn't be nearly as complicated as going for Mars, or even as
complex and spendy as the Saturn/Titan missions that are ongoing and
summarily dog-wagging us to death, as delivering more of the same class
of spin and hype as infomercials that's keeping the mainstream media
hooked, as well as the public entirely snookered and thereby so easily
dumbfounded, not to mention extra polluted and nearly bankrupt. What's
next; a trillion dollar/euro mission to land something on Uranus or
perhaps Neptune?

Lunar Space Elevator (LSE-CM/ISS)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

Not that I'd actually expect any reply from ISS but, it would be
interesting and highly informative as to hear something/anything
directly from the crew of ISS, or even from those of prior missions or
from the soon to be ISS crew, as to contemplate exactly what these folks
think of spending a little R&R (rad and rem) time outside of the Van
Allen zone of death.

ISS is supposedly far better shielded than any portion of those Apollo
missions, in some directions ISS must offer 100 fold more combined mass
for dealing with the likes of cosmic and solar radiation. Thus according
to the Apollo-13 mission that merely orbited the moon and returned as
directly as possible to Earth, their reported average TBI dosage wasn't
all that bad (240 mr or 40 mr/day), as compared to Apollo-11 which oddly
spent two extra days and supposedly 36 hours worth of that walking
essentially TBI naked on the highly reactive lunar surface amounted to
merely 180 mr (22.5 mr/day). Thus a non lunar landing and less time in
space travel was nearly twice as radiated as per actually walking upon
the moon (somehow the physics of all that doesn't compute, but then a
good deal of the lunar surface as recorded by Apollo doesn't add up
either).

With the added shielding afforded by ISS, and the fact that ISS
shouldn't get much closer than 60,000 km from the lunar surface, I'm
thinking worse case daily interior dosage could be close to 50 mr/day.
But if those Apollo readings were in correct by a factor of ten fold,
that's still only pushing the ISS interior to 0.5 rem/day, whereas I
believe ISS crew tolerance per mission of 50 rem is thereby good for 100
days worth of being fully solar and moonshine illuminated. Actually, the
secondary IR energy being radiated off the moon could impose a greater
threat than X-Ray dosage, not to mention running into whatever at
30+km/s isn't going to be all that pleasant.

Of course, if the combined dosage of lunar secondary, cosmic and solar
influx is honestly capable of being a hundred fold worse off than during
those Apollo missions, in which case the ISS will likely remain as a
robotic platform until operating within total darkness or by earthshine,
or until a few tonnes worth of shielding and thermal management can be
augmented to the critical crew area of ISS. Too bad we still don't have
interactive surface instruments telling us squat.

Perhaps including robust sleeping coffins of sufficient mass will become
good enough, as otherwise operating within total darkness or by
earthshine is where the space environment shouldn't be 10% of being
fully illuminated plus receiving the full dosage of those secondary rads
of hard-X-Rays off the moon. There must be quite a measurable
difference, though oddly there has been no such comparable data from
anything Apollo or just about any other mission that'll publicly share
the knowledge of exactly what the moon has to offer, or otherwise
charted of the radiation environment as traveling between us and the
moon within darkness, comparing that to being fully illuminated. It's
almost as though all such reflected thermal energy and secondary
radiation environment data has been intentionally excluded, at least I
haven't been smart enough as to locate where such information is
specifically recorded, thus it must be another one of those deep dark
secrets.

I have a few other related topics to share, some of which are not
specifically about our moon, though in more than a few ways everything
about future space exploration and just plain old space travel itself is
directly related to at least utilizing our moon as a rather necessary
gravitational booster shot, of passing as close to the moon as possible;

The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn

Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM

Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus

Life on Venus is absolute hell, but doable

Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius

Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus

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


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

Still no takers, no viable pro/con contributions of what's entirely
possible, or of whatever needs a whole lot more R&D before shipping the
likes of ISS off to the moon. It's almost as though our basalt dark and
extremely nasty moon is still entirely nondisclosure cold-war taboo, so
much so that of folks doing anything moon related might tip a few of
those nasty cold-war lids entirely off those jars of disinformation.

In which case, we could simply share and share alike on behalf of
delivering a replacement on behalf of team TRACE. Not towards the ME-L1
zone but to the Venus L2 (VL2) zone as such station-keeping is entirely
doable. Even though TRACE-II would represent an absolute win-win-win for
all involved, however I'll suspect that the usual lords and wizards of
this 'sci.space.station' forum that summarily sucks are not about to
share and share alike upon anything that really matters.

So, posting the contents of yet another topic like 'TRACE -- TRACE-II'
may not accomplish any better outcome here than for accomplishing
anything on behalf of the moon, and certainly not persay for relocating
the likes of ISS to VL2, as that's just totally insane, though
technically doable in a highly AI/robotic format.

Instead of ISS to the moon, how about TRACE -- TRACE-II -- VL2
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/
http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/POD/T...doverview.html

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Scien...ce_images.html

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Scien.../mov_page.html

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Scien.../tri980616.jpg

http://vestige.lmsal.com/TRACE/Scien...171_980521.jpg

From some reading and a brief look-see is where most of us can discover
and hopefully realize as to how much optical data and thereby scientific
bang for the almighty buck/euro that team TRACE has been delivering from
such a relatively small package. Just think of TRACE-II as being ten
fold improved in CCD and perhaps double the optics, thus somewhat larger
and easily outfitted with a few relatively small and somewhat even more
so insignificant power consuming laser communications cannons.

With the 2 fold improvement in optical magnification, plus a ten fold
improvement in CCD density (that's a combined 20 fold improvement in raw
pixel resolution power), of being situated roughly 20% closer to the sun
should become rather impressive, and still likely not 10% the investment
of accomplishing another Mars orbiting mission, and perhaps merely 1%
the investment of doing the likes of Saturn/Titan.

Getting the likes of TRACE-II into the VL2 sweet spot might be a little
tricky, a bit retro-thrust intensive and requiring a good deal more of
those xenon/ION engines in order to afford TRACE-II the necessary option
of moving itself somewhat in and out of the exact VL2 spot.

Actually, by now there should be a good 4 fold optical improvement plus
the 10 fold enhanced CCD, thus a 40 fold overall improvement along with
all of those absolutely super terrific spectrum selective band-pass
filters.

Thus whatever ESA/Russia can manage, you'd have to think that our crack
NASA wizards should be capable of pulling off a TRACE-II in nothing
flat.

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


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

Since there's clearly not all that much going for this topic within
this 'sci.space.station' forum that sucks, and since others outside of
this forum have been asking questions and sharing perfectly good
notions about related topics, such as securing the likes of ISS to the
moon via tethers, as such I'll offer the following information so that
folks that never stray from 'sci.space.station' can have a look-see
into what's possible.

As to protecting said tethers of the LSE-CM/ISS, or just for that of
the ISS:

Keeping in mind that my LSE(Lunar Space Elevator) tethers are far more
likely to avoid whatever's gravity influenced into arriving on the
scene, as opposed to the ESE(Earth Space Elevator) fiasco that's
clearly in the line of fire as being situated extremely close to Earth
and thereby highly attractive to whatever substances arrive at 6 fold
the gravity and thereby 36 fold the kinetic energy potential, but as
well as for those ESE tethers are having to avoid whatever's friendly
or foe satellites and ABL cannon fire, not to mention absolute tonnes
worth of space junk and of whatever mother nature and/or humanity has
enstore that's atmospheric related and/or more of the same old cold-war
related crapolla.

If the LSE-CM/ISS should experience tether damage, or even entirely
lose one of the primary tethers due to passing debris, a backup
(plan-B) tether probe/anchor deployment should really get with the
program, especially if that initially large item of perhaps several
tonnes were to be deployed so as to be passing the L1 point of no
return at 1 km/s and, as such is still affording a nearly zero rate of
orbit, whereas by the time that probe is arriving at the surface
some-odd 58,000 km below ME-L1 in roughly 15 minutes (unless
retro-rockets or the attached tether itself that's obviously connected
to the CM/ISS accomplishes any final velocity moderation) we should be
really getting with the lunar impacting program. In other words, you
name it as to the desired final impact velocity, as per depending upon
your selected point of free-fall and you've got it nailed.

The actual primary tethers might be easily and safely stored within the
CM/ISS complex, as besides the core 1e6 m3 ISS abode that's surrounded
by a borg like sphere that worth mega tonnes of clumping moon-dirt and
basalt rock, there'd also be plenty of less shielded pockets within or
merely extremities upon which to store several spools of those 70,000
km tethers.

In other words, a spare tether deployment and of it's anchor/probe
could be soft-launched away from ISS or of my the CM/ISS, given
whatever initial rate of velocity and allowed whatever controlled rate
of heading itself directly for the surface of the moon, whereas at any
given time the automatic program or mission operator merely releases it
for the final free-fall as it pays out a secondary tether that'll
eventually pull down and secure the primary tether once the probe is
well embedded into the moon.

The primary tether could actually be rather enormous, say a ribbon of
0.1 meter thick and a meter wide, or whatever shape you'd like, because
actually there's no shortage of the continuous basalt fiber that's
being robotically processed from the moon, and all of it accomplished
with the available solar energy at that, with the final product of 4.84
GPa is simply more than what's needed.

Actually, nothing should happen all that quickly anyway if the CM/ISS
that's essentially station-keeping us outside of the ME-L1
nullification zone, especially if my CM/ISS amounts to 50 megatonnes,
plus there's the CCM component that's situated towards the moon at
roughly ME-L 0.9 being entirely interactive with the process of further
stabilizing against orbital and tidal forces, plus whatever the
interactive dipole element had to share which could also become
utilized as the secondary interactive compensation factor that might
represent another part of your salvation for saving thy butt, thus
perhaps plan-C or even plan-D.

I'm thinking that all of this LSE/CM/ISS (lunar space elevator to the
GUTH moon-dirt depot in the sky) is simply way too complex for the
intellectually incest polluted mindset of folks that are auto-opposed
to absolutely everything that's under their sun, including more complex
than everything that's upon their flat Earth. So, without pictographics
and a few silly pop-up talking books by Leap Frog, perhaps there's no
viable way of my informing such absolute fools about any of this. What
do you think?

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

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 could push the fiber GPa to better than
9.

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 their investment values of 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, 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. So, 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 lots of cheap and squeaky clean
energy 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, the environment of Earth can become salvaged, and to even
think 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