Earth will manage to get hotter

Rich wrote:

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.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity).

Paul

In article , "Paul F. Dietz" writes:
Rich wrote:

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.

A really optimized system would just slightly scatter the light.
This can be done with much less mass than a mirror, at least
in principle. At some point the mass of the shade becomes so
small that it becomes difficult to hold in position against
'gusts' in the solar wind (which can very greatly in speed
depending on solar activity

To begin with, how you're going to hold such system against just plain
light pressure. Note that such system will have no rigidity to speak
of?

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

On May 18, 8:03 am, Rich wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As long as our nearby mascon of a moon is kicking mother Earth's butt
from the inside out, this 98.5% fluid Earth will manage to get hotter.

The laws of physics don't lie, but most faith-based folks will do
whatever it takes, and then some.
-
Brad Guth

On May 18, 6:56 am, Rich wrote:
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.

That's where the spendy supercomputer and of its fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator tells us exactly what to expext.

3X-L2 (moon L2X3) Tethered Tug = solar isolation of -22.5 w/m2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
A basalt tethered mass (easily made from and otherwise extracted
entirely from the moon) of accommodating 1e12 kg placed at 194,100 km
from the backside of the moon, or essentially 578,500 km from Earth,
that's moving along at 1539.556 km/s = 4.097e15 N (4.178e14 kg or
9.211e14 lbs) just to start with.

Perhaps the honest notions of our utilizing a tethered tug of merely
4.097e15 N, as such only has its off-world meaning to those of us with
actual remorse, and for otherwise having given an honest tinkers damn
worth of our compassion towards salvaging the badly damaged
environment of Earth, that's only going to get itself hotter as time
and that nearby mascon of a moon accomplishes its unavoidable
GW(global warming) thing.

Of course, this greater than monumental effort of relocating our moon
isn't going to transpire overnight, or even within the next few years,
as it'll demand a good decade of creating those substantial basalt
fiber tethers and of mostly robotics subsequently relocating 1e12 kg
of that moon out towards the 3X worth of or moon's L2 (roughly 194,100
km away from the backside). As the moon gets with the agenda of
moving out, either additional mass is further contributed or otherwise
allowed to drift away from that CM(counter mass), thereby giving us a
fully interactive method of control over every km step of the way
towards Earth's L1.

The moon's L1 of accommodating the LSE-CM/ISS (w/tether dipole
element) will become part of the moon's parking brake, interactively
deployed upon approaching the relative gravity nullification or quiet
zone of Earth's L1. This LSE-CM/ISS too will have been a major
robotic task, taking up most of the century in order to accomplish.

BTW this is also going to be seriously spendy.
-
Brad Guth

In article . com,
BradGuth wrote:


BTW this is also going to be seriously spendy.


No the word you're looking for is "absurd".

--
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.

On May 17, 5:49 pm, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)

Errr, is not L1 unstable?

Our moon's L1 is merely interactive. Our Moon's L1 (as is) can be
efficiently established and maintained for a given science platform.

Earth's L1 is a whole lot more stable, and thus a bit less interactive
than is our moon's L1.

The (Earth+moon) L1--Sol should become more stable than our existing
Earth L1 with that darn salty old moon causing all sorts of those
pesky orbital gravity fluctuations.


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.

It'll provide more shade than you think (roughly 3 fold as much as
necessary to offset GW), though it's not actually as much shade as
many (including myself) had previously been suggesting. My best swag
of today is suggesting a whole Earth solar influx drop of -22.5 w/m2,
although my 2D CAD and subsequent math is based upon flat disk areas
and not of spheres.

Certainly you have the way better 3D CAD and all of the right 3D
simulation math and graphical examples that'll nail this one down to
the +/- mw/m2


I like the Fututurama approach better, and it's much more doable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_m...elated&search=

Like most others that summarily suck and blow, you obviously think
this is funny, don't you. You think the demise of Earth's environment
is just what your faith-based mindset ordered, whereas yourself plus
others of your silly kind think that's only too funny that so many
have died, of many others are soon enough going to die, or at least
wish they were dead before the next big GW related fiasco hits.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 pm, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)
Errr, is not L1 unstable?

Our moon's L1 is merely interactive. Our Moon's L1 (as is) can be
efficiently established and maintained for a given science platform.

Earth's L1 is a whole lot more stable, and thus a bit less interactive
than is our moon's L1.

More stable? Is this the same as stable? Does it not still take fuel to
keep research spacecraft at earth L1 (or orbiting it)?

The (Earth+moon) L1--Sol should become more stable than our existing
Earth L1 with that darn salty old moon causing all sorts of those
pesky orbital gravity fluctuations.

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.

It'll provide more shade than you think (roughly 3 fold as much as
necessary to offset GW), though it's not actually as much shade as
many (including myself) had previously been suggesting.

If this is true then it would cause global cooling, would it not?

My best swag
of today is suggesting a whole Earth solar influx drop of -22.5 w/m2,
although my 2D CAD and subsequent math is based upon flat disk areas
and not of spheres.

So it would indeed cool the globe. By how much?

And what effect would this have on plant and animal life?

Certainly you have the way better 3D CAD and all of the right 3D
simulation math and graphical examples that'll nail this one down to
the +/- mw/m2

I like the Fututurama approach better, and it's much more doable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_m...elated&search=

Like most others that summarily suck and blow, you obviously think
this is funny, don't you.

I think Futurama is funny. Don't you?

You think the demise of Earth's environment
is just what your faith-based mindset ordered, whereas yourself plus
others of your silly kind think that's only too funny that so many
have died,

How many have died? And of what? I don't understand your point.

of many others are soon enough going to die,

How many are going to die?

Actually I kinda thought we were all gonna die. But what do I know,
eh?

or at least
wish they were dead before the next big GW related fiasco hits.

"[Y]our silly kind"? Just what species are you? Have you ever used the
name Trelain?

And the "next big GW related fiasco"? What was the last one?

And I really think that this is more in the realm of a thought experiment,
as it ain't something we can currently do. We can barely lift a few tons
into LEO today.

Or do you have some method for moving the moon? Please, elucidate.

Cheers

Rich

-
Brad Guth

On Fri, 18 May 2007 07:29:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, Rich
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 pm, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)
Errr, is not L1 unstable?

Our moon's L1 is merely interactive. Our Moon's L1 (as is) can be
efficiently established and maintained for a given science platform.

Earth's L1 is a whole lot more stable, and thus a bit less interactive
than is our moon's L1.

More stable? Is this the same as stable? Does it not still take fuel to
keep research spacecraft at earth L1 (or orbiting it)?

Guth is nuts. Please don't encourage him by responding to him.

On May 18, 7:29 am, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 17, 5:49 pm, Rich wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Moon --- Earth L1 (easier said and done, but we should do it anyway)
Errr, is not L1 unstable?

Our moon's L1 is merely interactive. Our Moon's L1 (as is) can be
efficiently established and maintained for a given science platform.

Earth's L1 is a whole lot more stable, and thus a bit less interactive
than is our moon's L1.

More stable? Is this the same as stable? Does it not still take fuel to
keep research spacecraft at earth L1 (or orbiting it)?

Are you saying our moon hasn't sufficient energy to spare?

Can you explain as to how much energy per tonne and per year it takes
for keeing a good Earth L1 science platform like ACE up and running?


The (Earth+moon) L1--Sol should become more stable than our existing
Earth L1 with that darn salty old moon causing all sorts of those
pesky orbital gravity fluctuations.

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.

It'll provide more shade than you think (roughly 3 fold as much as
necessary to offset GW), though it's not actually as much shade as
many (including myself) had previously been suggesting.

If this is true then it would cause global cooling, would it not?

That is true, but we humans have proven that we know how to seriously
pollute our environment with our nifty soot, CO2 and loads of toxic
elements to boot, so there's not to worry about too much global
cooling.


My best swag
of today is suggesting a whole Earth solar influx drop of -22.5 w/m2,
although my 2D CAD and subsequent math is based upon flat disk areas
and not of spheres.

So it would indeed cool the globe. By how much?

I just stipulated, that by day it's worth -22.5 w/m2 (you silly folks
do know what a watt of energy is, don't you?)


And what effect would this have on plant and animal life?

As I'd said, it's mostly good news, not that each and every known
species of life is going to appreciate getting a touch cooler (aka
back to normal).


Certainly you have the way better 3D CAD and all of the right 3D
simulation math and graphical examples that'll nail this one down to
the +/- mw/m2

I like the Fututurama approach better, and it's much more doable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgE_m...elated&search=

Like most others that summarily suck and blow, you obviously think
this is funny, don't you.

I think Futurama is funny. Don't you?

Yes I do. But the onging demise of our environment is not terribly
funny.


You think the demise of Earth's environment
is just what your faith-based mindset ordered, whereas yourself plus
others of your silly kind think that's only too funny that so many
have died,

How many have died? And of what? I don't understand your point.

And your kind never will understand.


of many others are soon enough going to die,

How many are going to die?

Hundreds of millions, which obviously is rather funny within your
mindset.


Actually I kinda thought we were all gonna die. But what do I know,
eh?

That's way too simple, taking the easy way out isn't playing fair.


or at least
wish they were dead before the next big GW related fiasco hits.

"[Y]our silly kind"? Just what species are you? Have you ever used the
name Trelain?

And the "next big GW related fiasco"? What was the last one?

The last ice age this planet will ever see was the big one that's
still thawing out to the very last km3 worth of ice, and for good
measure younaysay folks of denial can add a few spare degrees C on top
of that.

There's another atheist news group of denial that needs your all-
knowing naysay support. I think it's called hell.naysay.denial.bigot,
or something like that.


And I really think that this is more in the realm of a thought experiment,
as it ain't something we can currently do. We can barely lift a few tons
into LEO today.

Or do you have some method for moving the moon? Please, elucidate.

Yes I do happen to have at least one good method of moving that big
old salty moon of ours. Unfortunately, it has to do with the regular
laws of physics that your hocus-pocus conditional physics simply isn't
going to appreciate one damn bit.
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics, Rich

wrote
on Thu, 17 May 2007 17:49:17 -0700
:
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=

[...]

Heh...but where do we get the ice from? :-) (Or is that answered later
on?)


Rich

-
Brad Guth




--
#191,
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com