Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus

"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message


Not saying it would be easy or even possible on Mars either. It's just
as usual Brad comes out with a wacky assertion and expects people to
just take his word for it.

Thanks, but no I don't actually expect others to simply take my one and
only dyslexic encrypted words for anything, other than for my having
honestly shared my best deductive form of exploratory need-to-know
research, that obviously needs all the wizardly help it can muster.

I only introduce my perfectly subjective observationology along with
viable ideas and loads of ****-poor math whenever others can't be
bothered, or rather typically refuse to contribute anything that might
directly or indirectly help any portion of my arguments along.

Unlike the all-knowing lords and infomercial spewing wizards of this
mostly Old Testament faith-based Usenet, that's nearly always speaking
from their anti-think-tank hell that seemingly knows all there is to
know, whereas I hardly know enough to keep myself from getting run over
by a bus. In other words, I make more than my fair share of honest
mistakes. (sorry about that)
-
Brad Guth




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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:bcbb10ef5f0766594373ce70b9eb8b74.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

We'll not likely terraform our global warming moon, though ever so much
easier than accomplishing Mars, it's just not in those spendy cards
unless it's something China and/or India can pull off. Even our
accomplishing any space depot/gateway worth from the moon's L1 is
downright iffy, unless an artificial shade were incorporated along with
the extra tonnage of required shielding. The relocation of our moon to
Earth's L1 is simply too much pie in the sky, that would only take away
from our plan or foucs of pulling off WWIII. However, the Venus L2
platform is perfectly doable as is, along with offering energy and shade
to spare.

This VL2 application is ideal for the Bigelow POOF, because it's not an
exposed flyby.

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 limited mission, 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 for
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
hardly 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