microgravity - I stand corrected

: sal
: L-1 is an unstable point, not a stable point, and stationkeeping there
: is _not_ free, claims in this NG to the contrary notwithstanding.

I only saw a claim that stationkeeping costs there would be one percent
of stationkeeping costs in LEO. Of course, whether this is offset by
added energy costs of lofting things (like food and staff) from earth
to L1 vs LEO is ... unclear. Of course, if most of your traffic
is to the moon, that's a different story.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:7a7ed871d89c4bd66142399ba3f9ffdf.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


: "Brad Guth"
: BTW; the micro, nano or whatever pico gravity is in fact an orbital
: managed situation (at least I never said it wasn't), whereas at the
: moon's L1 is simply where it's taking less than 1% the energy budget as
: for sustaining that condition, not that even micro gravity is even all
: that necessary.

One percent compared to what?

Compared to the same degree of platform or ISS mass and volume that's
having to be LEO sustained.

And, that's in part because there are a good many energy management
things possible to achieve while within the moon's L1, which are far
more complex if not impossible to accomplish while in LEO. In fact,
while coasting efficiently along within the moon's L1, there should be a
given of having a healthy surplus of energy to burn (sort of speak).
-

Once again, I seem to feel that folks within this Usenet status quo
land, of mostly hyped infomercial-science, are actually going and/or
about to go anti-think-tank, and/or naysay postal at the same time.

1) Anything deployed at our moon's L1 starts off small, and it grows to
suit.

2) From then on. it only gets as big and/or as complex as you'd like it
to get.

My previously suggested 1e9 m3 CM/ISS abode that's capable of becoming
worth 256e6 tonnes is not an all or nothing sort of super Clarke Station
on steroids. For starters, it's simply quite a bit larger, it's placed
a wee bit further towards Earth, as well as it's multi-tethered directly
to the moon, and there are a few interactive elements involved. The
massive hull or shell of this CM/ISS may or may not have to spin, as
there are artificial gravity alternatives that would function from
within.

Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
So, why are so many of you folks getting so gosh darn huffy about this?
-
Brad Guth


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

From Wayne Throop:
: h (Rand Simberg)
: Wayne, it's because he's nuts.

No! You think?

The border between insanity and genius is like the Rio Grande. Worlds
apart, yet only a few steps across.


~ CT

Speaking about "microgravity", as such it's actually hard to come by
unless you're in a fast orbit or simply out and about while literally
hanging around our moon's L1.

If we're intent upon going for other planets, as such we could really
use our moon's L1. In fact, if going for our moon it's rather nifty if
not essential for having the mission command platform as coasting safely
and efficiently within this ME-L1 pocket.

0) Our moon's L1 isn't a cheap date, nor is it not complex. You'll need
more than a good slide rule or pocket calculator if planning upon
utilizing this nifty interactive space that's so nearby. In other
words, all morons and/or the dumb and dumber sorts of snookered fools
need not apply.

1) Anything deployed at our moon's L1 starts off small, and it grows to
suit.

2) From then on. it only gets as big and/or as complex as you'd like it
to get.

3) Because of what this LSE-CM/ISS represents, it's not going to happen
overnight.

My previously suggested 1e9 m3 CM/ISS abode that's capable of becoming
worth 256e6 tonnes is not an all or nothing sort of super Clarke Station
on steroids. For starters, it's simply quite a bit larger, it's placed
a wee bit further towards Earth, as well as it's multi-tethered directly
to the moon, and there are a few interactive elements involved. The
massive hull or shell of this CM/ISS may or may not have to spin, as
there are artificial gravity alternatives that would function from
within.

Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
So, why are so many of you folks getting yourselves so gosh darn huffy
about all of this?

Just because you don't have a masters degree in Chinese Mandarin doesn't
mean that we're out of luck. That's because being smarter than us, as
such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order to
accommodate their less fortunate clients, such as us.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document, that's rather interesting
but otherwise seriously outdated, not to mention way under-shielded
unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having established an
artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters of h2o if w/o
magnetosphere (all because it's parked within 60,000 km of our
physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's providing
gamma and hard-X-rays), is simply downright wussy about sharing the
positive science and habitat/depot considerations for utilizing the
moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly a mention of the tremendous L1
benefits to humanity, much less as to space exploration or the daunting
task of salvaging our environment, and it's still not having squat to do
with developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon itself.
-
Brad Guth


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

From Brad Guth:
Once again, I seem to feel that folks within this Usenet status quo
land, of mostly hyped infomercial-science, are actually going and/or
about to go anti-think-tank, and/or naysay postal at the same time.


To help maintain the 'Use'ful in Usenet, there is a great saying:
It is important not to confuse the loudest voice with the majority
voice.

I'd go further to add:
It is important to discern whether the majority voice is the voice of
reason.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
oups.com

It is important to discern whether the majority voice is the voice of
reason.

You must be right, because that's exactly what the likes of Hitler and
that of our pro Third Reich resident LLPOF warlord had to say, as to
discern their voice, or else.
-
Brad Guth


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

This is true "microgravity", or as close as can be affordably obtained
and sustained, whereas anything LEO is a spendy and energy inefficient
joke.

Most folks are still not being allowed to fully appreciate our moon's
L1. Of course, most Americans are still pretty much mainstream
dumbfounded and/or having been snookered about a great many such
important things in this highly infomercial skewed life, even as to what
little we've been allowed to know of (such as there having been
intelligent other life existing/coexisting on Venus) is often
taboo/nondisclosure X-rated. Perhaps those more intelligent members in
support of or working within the China National Space
Administration/CNSA are as such less snookered than we're giving them
credit for.

Basically, the average free-gravity-zone of this moon L1 is supposedly
r33.5~r34 away from the moon and otherwise merely r51 from Earth
(unfortunately there's still no hard-scientific and thus independently
replicated proof of such actually being the case of those specific
numbers), that's worthy of obtaining micro if not nano and even pico
gravity, although nearly any +/- adjustment in the net gravity can be
accommodated and rather efficiently interactively sustained.

Within this interactive moon L1 pocket (+/- wherever it has to be) there
should be as little as 1% the atoms/cm3 and of the required velocity is
roughly 9 fold less than LEO (those factors alone represent a rather
huge reduction in orbital friction, and thereby greatly minimizing
station-keeping energy demands). There's also no pesky gauntlet of Van
Allen belt radiation or SAA like nasty pocket of magnetosphere stored
radiation. It's also nearly always sunny as well as having either
earthshine and/or moonshine at your disposal, and of that moonshine so
happens to include a great deal of useful secondary/recoil photons in
the IR/FIR spectrum, plus offering loads of gamma and hard-X-rays
because there's so little mass between L1 and the highly reactive naked
surface of the physically dark and cosmic morgue that's represented by
our moon.

The moon's L1 is not technically a problem for most robotics, however
our frail DNA will demand a great amount of shielding that's similar to
8 meters of water, and for any long term (multi year) human involvement
demanding 16 meters of water unless an artificial magnetosphere can be
sustained. There's also the pesky matter of having to survive various
meteors of potentially lethal flak that isn't the least bit moderated in
velocity nor being gravity diverted.

This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's nicely revised and
certainly rather interesting but otherwise seriously outdated,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
not to mention way under-shielded unless incorporating 8+ meters of
water plus having somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or
perhaps incorporating 16+ meters of h2o if w/o magnetosphere (shielding
that's necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from our
physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's continually
providing such a not so DNA friendly TBI worth of gamma and
hard-X-rays), is simply a downright deficient document about sharing the
positive science and constructive habitat/depot considerations for
utilizing the moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly any mention of the
tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space exploration or
the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed environment, and it's
still not having squat to do with any primary task of actually
developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon itself.

On the other hand, whereas the CM/ISS portion of the LSE which I've
proposed offers 50t/m2 of outter shell or hull shielding for
accommodating the 1e9 m3 interior, thereby multiple decades if not an
entire lifetime can be afforded, as to safely accommodating our frail
DNA. That may seem like a rather great amount of tonnage deployment,
though eventually 99.9% is derived from the moon itself. Of course,
don't mind anything that I have to suggest, whereas you can keep
thinking as small and/or as insignificant as you'd like. However, our
having remained as LEO/terrestrial sequestered isn't going to help us
explore, pillage and rape the other planets and of their moons, not to
mention the mining and/or possible terraforming potential of digging
into our very own global warming moon that's chuck full of nifty and
rare elements.

I guess what's needed for this topic is an open mindset that isn't
afraid of it's own shadow, that isn't afraid of having made or of making
a few honest or even not so honest mistakes, nor demonstrating that
perhaps we're not exactly the smartest nor the most entitled species of
DNA in this universe. (sorry about that)
-
Brad Guth


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

: "Brad Guth"
: This is true "microgravity", or as close as can be affordably obtained
: and sustained, whereas anything LEO is a spendy and energy inefficient
: joke.

Somehow, by some fantaastic oversight, any rationale for why any given
freefall trajectory yields "truer" microgravity than any other, has been
omitted. Possibly the issue is tides. In which case, tides at L[4,5]
are lower, and just as affordable.

: I guess what's needed for this topic is an open mindset

Better would be an actual rationale that made sense.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


Somehow, by some fantaastic oversight, any rationale for why any given
freefall trajectory yields "truer" microgravity than any other, has been
omitted. Possibly the issue is tides. In which case, tides at L[4,5]
are lower, and just as affordable.

: I guess what's needed for this topic is an open mindset

Better would be an actual rationale that made sense.

Speaking about "microgravity", and since there's still no chance in hell
of ISS ever being shipped off to Venus L2 or apparently much less that
of our moon's L1:

Sustainable "microgravity" is only humanly affordable at our moon's L1
(sorry about that). If you can't force yourself as to imagine anything
the least bit constructive that relates to our moon's L1, then nothing
else that I could possibly have to say will alter or much less improve
upon your closed mindset.

Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...b30b85de221840

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/so...smart&p=1/1566
"Paul Mc" wrote in message
ups.com
A subject worthy of discussion. Has Arthur C expressed an opinion about
it?

I obviously have to agree with "Paul Mc", but what's your honest give or
take?

This is not a Clarke Station, although it's entirely similar in having
utilized the moon's L1 gravity-well pocket. However, instead of having
to interactively drift and subsequently reaction thrust all over the
place, the LSE-CM/ISS is nicely tethered to the moon, and it's otherwise
pulled upon and thereby better aligned by the dipole element which
reaches it's termination science pod/platform/depot to within 4r (or of
whatever's appropriate) of mother Earth.

BTW; who is this "Arthur C"? (other than the 89 year [near death] old
fart of Arthur
C. Clarke himself)
-
Brad Guth


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

Elfritz Non Grata wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:01:23 -0600, kT wrote:

I fully intend to act on this. Robert Mosley III is on notice.

Almost two years later, nothing's happened. Whassamatta, troll?
Couldn't get enough quarters dropped in your tin can to afford a
street lawyer?

You're posting on giganews, are you not?