Earth will manage to get hotter

Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)

Relocating our moon from its existing orbit, that's simply cruising a
little too close for our confort zone, out to being parked within the
orbit of Earth's L1, is an all around win-win for everything and
everyone on Earth, although at least half the moon is going to become
a little worse off (sorry about that, it can't be helped).

This is not an overnight or even a decade worthy consideration, but
more than likely a century worth of applied physics on behalf of
migrating 7.35e22 kg away from it's existing orbit. Trust me, it's
going to be so much easier said than done.

Accomplishing this environmental salvaging task on behalf of achieving
tidal moderation, of what should become worth slightly more than half
of our existing tidal forced situation, as such is going to
extensively moderate the amount of this orbiting mascon energy that's
unavoidably converted into various forms of terrestrial friction, and
thus into creating internal and surface heat, and that's not to
mention our accomplishing the little further reduction in reflected
and secondary IR/FIR energy that's currently derived from our
physically dark moon, will obviously no longer exist once that moon is
situated at Earth's L1.

The amount of shade or solar isolation created by way of having our
moon at Earth's L1 is of course the primary goal and direct benefit,
whereas of my best swag thus far is suggesting that it'll essentially
cause a global insolation reduction of -22.5 watts/m2. According to
many others and the expertise of their global warming research, that
-22.5 w/m2 is capable of offering us a thermal offest of global
warming compensation worth better than three times the amount
estimated as in surplus or excess of energy that's supposedly
responsible for having created our environment's recent past, existing
and continually warming situation, and that's not looking good if you
happen to be made of ice or otherwise manage to survive best because
of snow and ice.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)

Errr, is not L1 unstable?

And L1 is about 4x the current lunar distance. Given that an eclipse
at the current distance sweeps a narrow path across the earth it
would seem that the moon at that distance would provide very little
shade, if any.

I like the Fututurama approach better, and it's much more doable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_m...elated&search=

[...]

Rich

-
Brad Guth

Rich wrote:

And L1 is about 4x the current lunar distance. Given that an eclipse
at the current distance sweeps a narrow path across the earth it
would seem that the moon at that distance would provide very little
shade, if any.

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.

I still like the billion mylar balloons at high altitude concept; it's
very simple, they can be turned out at almost nothing per balloon, and
sunrises and sunsets are going to look very wild indeed with the whole
sky full of glittering points of light.
Could you bounce microwaves off of these things for telecommunications
or OTH radar?

Pat

On May 17, 10:22 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.

I still like the billion mylar balloons at high altitude concept; it's
very simple, they can be turned out at almost nothing per balloon, and
sunrises and sunsets are going to look very wild indeed with the whole
sky full of glittering points of light.
Could you bounce microwaves off of these things for telecommunications
or OTH radar?

Pat

The new and improved L1 is actually very stable.

You folks really don't get the big picture, or even the medium
picture. You are looking at everything as though through a straw, and
at best that's a pretty damn narrow FOV.

I say; we run those full blown supercomputer simulations, then we
speak.

BTW; How many dozen of those spendy supercomputers do we own these
days?
-
Brad Guth

On 2007-05-18 07:43:14 +0100, BradGuth said:

I say; we run those full blown supercomputer simulations, then we
speak.

BTW; How many dozen of those spendy supercomputers do we own these
days?

Still too scared to download AstroGrav - the simulator which does
EVERYTHING you want?
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 10:22 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Paul F. Dietz wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.
You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.
I still like the billion mylar balloons at high altitude concept; it's
very simple, they can be turned out at almost nothing per balloon, and
sunrises and sunsets are going to look very wild indeed with the whole
sky full of glittering points of light.
Could you bounce microwaves off of these things for telecommunications
or OTH radar?

Pat

The new and improved L1 is actually very stable.

The new and improved L1?

You folks really don't get the big picture, or even the medium
picture.

How about the small picture? Like the screen on my old digital
camera?

You are looking at everything as though through a straw, and
at best that's a pretty damn narrow FOV.

Is that something like a POV?

If so, what's a narrow POV? Is that a POV where you see only one
thing? Like moving the moon to save the world perhaps?

I say; we run those full blown supercomputer simulations, then we
speak.

What is it we'll be simulating?

BTW; How many dozen of those spendy supercomputers do we own these
days?

We? I don't own even one. This computer is an Athlon X2 4200+, and
it suits my needs for video work.

Cheers

Rich

-
Brad Guth

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Rich wrote:

And L1 is about 4x the current lunar distance. Given that an eclipse
at the current distance sweeps a narrow path across the earth it
would seem that the moon at that distance would provide very little
shade, if any.

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

That's a lot of light pressure.

You don't need a full shadow to reduce insolation at the Earth;
a shade that appears smaller than the sun's disk, as seen from
Earth, would still reduce insolation at Earth. What you'd want
is the shade placed so that for every illuminated spot on Earth,
the shade was fully in front of the sun as seen from that spot.

I don't see how the moon at earth L1 could provide what "you'd want".

Nor am I positive that this would be a good idea, even if it were
possible. The law of unintended consequences is in play, and you
don't always get what you expect, or want.

Cheers

Rich

Paul

Rich wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.


That's a lot of light pressure.

Sure. But a solar shade necessarily experiences a lot of light pressure.

I don't see how the moon at earth L1 could provide what "you'd want".

The moon, no. You'd want a much much lighter object, and more area.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Rich wrote:

L1 is unstable, so keep shades there would require active stabilization,
probably involving light pressure.

That's a lot of light pressure.

Sure. But a solar shade necessarily experiences a lot of light pressure.

OK, I had thought you were referring to the moon, not solar shades. My mistake.

I don't see how the moon at earth L1 could provide what "you'd want".

The moon, no. You'd want a much much lighter object, and more area.

I'm not sure it makes much difference to the earth whether the shade
reflects the light or absorbs it. But I guess it'll get hot enough
even if it's reflective.

Cheers

Rich

Paul