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

"Jay Windley" wrote in message ...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
| (Alan Anderson) wrote in message
...
|
| What does secondary radiation have to do with illumination, solar or
| otherwise? It's an issue when talking about shielding from cosmic rays,
| not walking on the lunar surface.

snip

| In other words, our sun is by far a seriously big cosmic source of
| rays.

No. High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against them.
The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably lower energy
and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are minimal.

| On top of all that, lunar soil and rock is supposedly of mostly
| basalt, which is not only relatively dark in color (near black) but
| far denser than aluminum and, thereby creating greater amounts of
| secondary radiation in the form of hard X-Rays.

Molecular weight, not bulk density, better determines a substance's ability
to generate secondary radiation.

Thanks ever so much for all your corrective feedback.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of mular radiation that
become hard X-Ray class.

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun"

Does that happen to include the likes of the last couple of weeks of
solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface, as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This is somewhat like getting a grasp upon the applied energy (thrust)
involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman )

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what you've just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm


Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com