Energy that's between us and our moon

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message


"Brad Guth" wrote
Our moon is in fact warming mother Earth, and there is a great deal of
energy that's between Earth and that absolutely horrific moon of our's,
yet there's not a kind word of wisdom to behold.

Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.

Wooo Hoooo.......

Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself in
relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?

I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.

In other words, if that moon were to trek off somewhat will-nilly on its
own, say cruising along as an independent planetoid, or such as cruising
within Earth's L1, whereas the affects of whatever Earth once had upon
that moon would have been extremely insignificant.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

There's no law stipulating that we have to go for our moon, or even for
establishing the LSE-CM/ISS within the moon's L1, but there will come a
time of great need for such clean energy, not to mention accomplishing
the space exploration gateway and the one and only affordable access
to/from our moon. (I'm intentionally leaving out NEO--lethal asteroid
management, because that's simply too much faith in humanity and the
salvation of our badly failing environment for such naysay mindsets to
deal with)

Keeping my topics off the Usenet index isn't going to buy you folks
another spare watt of clean and much less renewable energy, now is it.

We have a new and improved definition of "plentiful" = 100 years, and I
do believe that's at best unless you folks can afford yellowcake at
$1000/kg, if not more spendy. At the end of that road we're left with
all of those vast gaping holes and horrific open pit sores, plus tens of
thousands of years for the daunting task of safe keeping spent fuel and
contaminated materials to deal with, along with our having to accept
another 10 fold worth of surface environment exposure for getting our
frail DNA used to likes of radium (or perhaps die while trying).

"Global Nuclear Expansion Based on Plentiful Uranium Supply"
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1092.htm
Total conventional uranium resources are estimated at 14.8 million
metric tons, the Red Book shows.

Of that amount, Sokolov said the nuclear experts are confident of 4.7
million metric tons of "identified resources," which can be mined for
less than $130 per kilo. "We know they exist because we can see them in
mines that are already dug, or in rock samples that have been analyzed
for the next mine, or they can be inferred from the surrounding
geology," he said. World uranium resources in total are considered to be
much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in
phosphates, the study considers that more than 35 million metric tons
are available for exploitation.

"One important reference point to note is that in the whole 60 year
history of the nuclear era through today, the total amount of uranium
that has been produced adds up to about 2.2 million metric tons,"
Sokolov said.

If world nuclear capacity increasts 22 percent by 2025, the industry
would require about 80,000 metric tons each year. If the increase is up
to 43 percent, the industry would require 100,000 metric tons per year,
the new Red Book shows.
-

And there's certainly lots more to behold within this year old
"press1092.htm" document that's worth our noting. However, if thus far
we've extracted 2.2 million metric tonnes of yellowcake (currently at
the rate of taking roughly 66,000 tonnes/year) and if the near future
expansion of such is increasing that global demand to 100,000
tonnes/year, and if there/s only 4.7 million tonnes of that
yellowcake/uranium product for certain as affordably obtainable, is
what's suggesting that a clean energy future as based upon such nuclear
derived energy isn't forever, nor is it going to remain as an affordable
option considering the more spendy worth of future extractions and the
ongoing total birth to grave investment that's required of utilizing
nuclear energy (including the multi thousand year safe keeping of spent
fuel and contaminated materials).

Without an off-world/extraterrestrial resource of yellowcake, such as
from our moon, we're not exactly looking all that good unless you folks
can foresee $1000/kg as being affordable within a 100 year frame of what
our near future holds for us. As the price of oil and coal extractions
goes through the roof, and the likes of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush) is insuring that WW-III could happen at any moment, whereas
certainly that'll only add to further inflating the $1000/kg futures of
yellowcake by a similar cost factor. Therefore, there really isn't an
upper cost limit to the nuclear energy future unless some new and
improved robotic process of uranium extractions becomes the status quo,
and even then we're looking at best two centuries worth. Then what?
(WW-IV, as based upon using VX or perhaps down to tossing rocks at one
another?)

"Depleted uranium is Washington's secret nuclear war" isn't all that far
off the mark if you happen to live downwind, or for that matter damn
near anywhere on Earth, and there will be future Chernobyl’s if not
worse things to come, such as contaminated ground water to add to the
matter of our environment losing roughly -.05%/year of our magnetosphere
is what's going to combine into a double suckerpunch hit upon our frail
DNA.
http://cleanfutures.blogspot.com/200...1_archive.html
"The most recent estimates suggest up to 90,000 people may die as a
consequence of this terrible event, while food-producing farmland 2,400
kilometres away in Britain remains contaminated to this day,"

This is not to say that modern and efficient utilization of nuclear
energy should be avoided, just that it's not ever going to be all that
affordable, can't possibly become as footprint space efficient nor ever
fail safe as is the 100% renewable alternatives of the 40 kw/m2
footprint that's represented by the combined solar/wind/stirling
alternative that we can safely live directly under and beside and
forever survive along with such clean energy towers of power that look a
whole lot better than massive cooling towers and vase off-limits
reservations as taken forever away from public lands in order to suit
the spendy and somewhat lethal nuclear alternative.

Here's an estimate of the American drain upon global energy reserves:
The average barrel equivalent of the all inclusive energy taken per each
and every person in America (including coal, natural gas, hydro
electric, nuclear and solar/wind derived energy), as well as taking into
account for our energy sucking military and other offshore operations,
is worth somewhere between 25 and 30 barrels of such energy per day
(300e6 * 30 = 9e9 barrels/day), with each barrel unit of energy worth
5.8e6 btu. That's 5.8e6 * 30 = 174e6 btu/day, or nearly equivalent to
that of our taking 64e9 barrels/year if all of that energy were derived
from oil (which of course it isn't).

That sort of means that we're only contributing 64e9 * 5.8e6 = 371e12
btu/year after year.

Another future example of such prime energy usage: SAI's QSST is a
fully loaded 153,000-pound business SST.

The Lockheed Martin/SAI-QSST fuel burn for hauling 12 passengers 3000
miles is suggesting anything but good EMPG, and boasting as to a mere 2%
of GTOW for passengers and crew isn't exactly impressive unless your
name is Exxon. At perhaps 75% loading (8 + 3 crew), figure something
near 50,000 lbs of fuel per each cross country trip (there's supposedly
a total of 73,100 lbs worth of fuel and passenger+crew payload to work
with). Don't even ask where they're going to fit all of that 4,600 nm
long-haul spendy fuel.

The clean alternative for creating consumer products and raw energy:
The world's largest turbines are manufactured by the Northern German
companies Enercon and REpower. The Enercon E112 delivers up to 6 MW, has
an overall height of 186 m (610 ft) and a diameter of 114 m (374 ft).

Those 52 meter blades, of 20 tonnes each, applied to the 10 meter hub on
top of a 120 meter tower is what accomplishes a blade swept area of
10,207 m2. This is but one good example of what's doable via the wind
energy tower footprint alone, that's obviously 100% proven as off the
shelf and thereby ready to go.

With such clean energy in surplus is where the likes of LH2 and H2O2 can
become mass produced on location, or via the national grid in order to
suit each local demand, thus transporting of either LH2 or H2O2 is
minimised. This is not saying that either LH2 or H2O2 are ever going to
be as safe as water, although tens of thousands of us humans prematurely
die specifically from water related issues each and every year, so I'm
not exactly certain if using the "safe as water" analogy is a good one.
-
Brad Guth


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

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message


"Brad Guth" wrote
Our moon is in fact warming mother Earth, and there is a great deal of
energy that's between Earth and that absolutely horrific moon of our's,
yet there's not a kind word of wisdom to behold.

Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.

Wooo Hoooo.......

Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself, other
than in relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?

I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.

In other words, if that moon were to trek off somewhat willy-nilly on
its own, say cruising along as an independent planetoid, or such as
cruising within Earth's L1, whereas the affects of whatever Earth once
had upon that moon would have been extremely insignificant.
-
Brad Guth



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

"VistaJustWorks" wrote
Yup, and the earth is warming the moon. Tidal forces and the like.

Wooo Hoooo.......


"Brad Guth" wrote
Silly boy,
The last time I'd checked, the moon was not rotating about itself in
relationship to Earth, or did I get that part wrong?

Well, yes and no. The moon's orbital and rotation period are the same on
average but since the moon's orbit isn't circular, and it is compelled to
rotate at a fixed rate at times it's angular rotation rate will be larger
than the rate at which it's orbital angular position changes, and at times
slower. This difference is a rotation, or an angular oscillation, resulting
in variations in the deformation of the moon and therefore heating.

Tidal forces also represent the difference in gravitational attraction
over the volume of the body in question. As the moon for example, moves
closer to and farther from the earth, these tidal forces change since the
earth's gravitational field changes strength faster the closer you are. The
moon therfore elongates more when it is closer, and relaxes under it's own
gravity when it is farther away. This variation in the moon's shape also
causes heating.


"Brad Guth" wrote
I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.

Ya, well since you were being a lunatic, I thought I might as well throw
you a bone.

"VistaJustWorks" wrote in message


Well, yes and no. The moon's orbital and rotation period are the same on
average but since the moon's orbit isn't circular, and it is compelled to
rotate at a fixed rate at times it's angular rotation rate will be larger
than the rate at which it's orbital angular position changes, and at times
slower. This difference is a rotation, or an angular oscillation, resulting
in variations in the deformation of the moon and therefore heating.

I'd have to agree, and as I'd said before, that's worth perhaps 0.1% of
what that moon is doing to us per square meter or per cubic meter.
What's your hard science number or best swag that's associated with
Earth heating up our moon?

Besides those pesky factors of gravity; what's the amount of secondary
IR/FIR energy that's coming from our moon?


Tidal forces also represent the difference in gravitational attraction
over the volume of the body in question. As the moon for example, moves
closer to and farther from the earth, these tidal forces change since the
earth's gravitational field changes strength faster the closer you are. The
moon therfore elongates more when it is closer, and relaxes under it's own
gravity when it is farther away. This variation in the moon's shape also
causes heating.

However, without something that's sufficiently fluid to move about (like
whatever's within our dead old moon) represents that damn little of
whatever gravity or tidal force is going to cause any significant
heating of that salty old moon of ours.

How fluid is that lunar core?


"Brad Guth" wrote
I can't say this for sure, but as far as we know there are no lunar
oceans, or even any viable fluid core issues to deal with. Therefore,
the Earth warming the moon is simply not worth 0.1% of whatever that
moon is doing to us.

Ya, well since you were being a lunatic, I thought I might as well throw
you a bone.

You do realize that we "lunatic" folks didn't exist until well enough
after the last ice age this planet will ever see.

What do we know for certain about the formation of the arctic ocean
basin, and of when Earth got its seasonal tilt?
-
Brad Guth


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

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:58:02 -0500, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
"VistaJustWorks" wrote:



"Brad Guth" wrote
the usual nonsense from brad.

Everyone else:

--
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message


What exactly is your all-knowing naysay problem?

Is it a born-again faith based or brown-nosed thing, or what?
-
Brad Guth




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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e6de78cfaa5f3a21e87a92ad1b149957.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

There is in fact clean energy that's coexisting between Earth and of our
moon, although the Usenet dis-info gauntlet of so many liars telling us
lies is rather daunting, to say the least. So, don't expect any
positive results prior to WWIII or paying $100/gallon (whichever comes
first).

Our government of born-again lying puppets and of their religious
puppeteering liars are simply the well established status quo, just like
in them good old Third Reich days when the taking from others was just
good all around sportsmanship, even if it meant exterminating a few
million of their own kind.

So what's the difference, if we're still being continually lied to about
why the fuel efficient Lupo 3L w/turbodiesel and the Audi A2 are not
getting imported?

It seems that now these pesky Usenet MIB are into diverting if not
shutting down as much of my access to Mailgate/Usenet as possible, as
though somehow that's a viable tactic that's going to alter the truth
and nothing but the truth, and thus somehow save thy infomercial spewing
butts. Keeping such hot topics as this one off their publicly accessed
index page is also another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.

Perhaps Usenet needs a new robo-moderation policy of not allowing any
truths to being shared.

In addition to all that's clearly ongoing as having been officially
MI/NSA orchestrated, as taboo/nondisclosure (damage-control) about most
anything Venus, it seems there's still more bad news on the event
horizon that we can all use about our silly moon, which for damm good
reasons hasn't quite been walked upon.

NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax / banished from Mailgate

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...2a2ea85ea88d70

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...smart&p=1/1963

If these pro-NASA folks accept their own fundamental notions that our
warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo expertise have photographed our moon's
physically dark terrain along with mother Earth as coexisting within the
same FOV, and especially interesting is of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic
range) as having rather easily recorded portions of our dark oceans that
are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1 (entirely similar enough as to the
moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive and somewhat blue/violet
peak spectrum as representing the nearby vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds, which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8
to work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what their naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.

Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or otherwise from those supposed
EVAs upon the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of
any other significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, yet
as though such entirely significant items that should have been easily
recorded were never once to be seen (especially odd as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).

As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained views of at
least those three missions (always within each of their command module's
orbital view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with apparently far better DR and of a wider spectrum
capability than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db
CCD could apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth
which only provided us with a rather naked looking and otherwise
somewhat pastel view of Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating
our physically dark moon, much less having shared upon any other
significant planets or stars that simply had to be there, yet all such
other items were getting artificially made as invisible/stealth as were
all of those Muslim WMD.

Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye,
which can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon all of the continual thermal trauma of
their having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also
coexisted, as coming at their naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding
directions in addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.

That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather ****
poor UV reflector because, such UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal buttloads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum lethal gauntlet of 3.14e6
m2 that's contributing the full secondary spectrum worth of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every physically more than boiling role of all that
sensitive Kodak film.

Wayne Throop:
If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
grain would still be exposed.

Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated (meaning w/o UV), whereas instead of their having
to deal with whatever the raw and nearly point source of the extremely
contrasty solar spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw
influx having unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the
near-UV and UV-a energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such
hocus-pocus artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of
mission associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a
scientific hoot.

Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket and still unproven lunar lander factors that simply do not
add up to what those pesky regular laws of physics and of replicated
science and of otherwise proven lander technology has to say.

Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop", "rick_so" and myself as your
pesky historical revisionist team, and otherwise truth telling
messengers from hell, must continually **** on your silly hocus-pocus
parade.
-
Brad Guth

Of a similar topic that's worthy of open disclosu
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources / banished from Mailgate

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...a52739c889bcc2

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/Pbb1h.956$CT5.551%40trnddc02?order=smart&p=1/469


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

Is our trusty Mailgate/Usenet even working, or did I manage to brake it?
(again)
-
Brad Guth




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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3b4798c18ba5f7c68ea8bab83c67fd60.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

This somewhat polished contribution is indirectly related, as to the
ongoing energy that's between Earth and our moon, and otherwise helping
us to appreciate as to how cold this Earth would get once our moon was
out of the way, or at least as for having been relocated out to Earth's
L1 for safe keeping, and for otherwise accomplishing a double benefit.

In other words, I for one do not believe this daunting relocation phase
is going to demand all that much applied energy (most of which would be
derived from the moon itself), especially if it's currently moving out
at 38 mm/year as is.

mailgate/sci.astro / Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?
stealth listed topic: "Mailgate: Message not available"

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...d6f253d352fdaf
Will the Moon Crash Into Earth?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...8810ced9d201fe

Actually, as it moves into higher orbits, its velocity decreases.

What exactly are those hard scientific numbers (not via theory), as
having been independently measured down to the picosecond, about its
receding orbital loss of velocity per year?

It seems as though it would have been so much easier and otherwise
having been far more accurate as to our having measured any such annual
reduction in orbital velocity per year, than of having measured it's
supposed 38 mm/year of tidal forced recession.

I mean to further suggest, that it's apparently having to travel a bit
further each year, and according those of your mindset it's also taking
some loss in orbital velocity to boot, or perhaps it actually isn't
doing either, if not otherwise falling back towards Earth because of
having 'once upon a time' bounced itself off Earth to begin with.

In addition to all of that rant; What's the ongoing slug factor
(Vt/terminal velocity drag coefficient) in kgf that's working against
that extremely rough (40e12 m2) moon of ours?

You'd think that such a nifty 900,000 km comet like trail of what's
mostly solar wind forced sodium is capable of giving us a clue as to the
Vt/slug factor.


The paragraph above - and all the rest I have snipped below - both somewhat
cranky and wrong, at least as an explanation of the recession of the moon.

Sorry about all of that. For good reason(s), I am in fact somewhat
cranky, as having been so ever since interpreting that somehow Venus has
been accommodating other intelligent life, as having been
existing/coexisting where it's supposedly so freaking hot and nasty.

In other words, instead of your being the least bit cranky, whereas
you're cozy with being snookered and thus easily dumbfounded that you
actually believe we've walked upon that nasty moon of our's, even though
there's no such replicated evidence that actually proves NASA/Apollo
moon-walking squat, at least not as based upon those pesky regular laws
of physics.

You also don't believe that our moon is still in the process of losing
mass, or much less that it's seemingly losing substantial amounts of
sodium (I've estimated roughly 23.5 micrograms/m2/day), as otherwise you
would have given or having shared specific information that proves
otherwise.

I haven't entirely excluded tidal forces, but yourself and others of
your kind have always excluded whatever rocks your Old Testament
thumping (Earth/moon only) boat, as though we're it and there's none
others to behold within this entire universe that's existing/coexisting
as intelligent life, much less having managed nearly as good at it as
us.

What makes you folks think we even originated or subsequently belong
upon this planet that has become almost insufficient for sustaining our
species, that is unless you've got the biggest and nastiest gun in town,
as well as having no remorse about using it.
-

BTW; the thrust of a given rocket is in fact based upon the sudden
removal of mass that's going away from the original mass, the same as to
what's happening at an extremely slow pace with our moon that's losing
mass while moving itself away from Earth. Yet as far as we know of, its
orbital velocity simply isn't slowing down enough, if at all. So, what
gives?

I have no actual idea, outside of my best swag, as to the ongoing exit
velocity of my suggested 940 tonnes/day worth of sodium. So, for now
I'm sticking with the wussy exit velocity of one meter/second.
Ovbiously if it were exiting at 10 m/s would require 1% the sodium mass
as per what my best swag had previously suggested, and less yet due to
whatever amount of secondary tidal force is at play.
-

According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct);
If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by 38 mm/year, and as such
not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon 1.023
km/s, it should be taking 2.334e-4 second longer for getting that
horrifically big old and massive sucker around us.

Obviously if your tidal forced analogy were all inclusive, as to
representing what's causing our moon's recession at the velocity losing
budget of whatever that amounts to, along with taking into account
whatever's the Vt/slug factor, whereas it should if anything be causing
the orbital velocity as having been somewhat diminished measurably from
the velocity of each previous year. Therefore, if anything the extra
amount of orbital time required by rights should have become much
greater than imposing the fixed velocity factor of taking 2.334e-4
second longer to get around Earth.

Besides all my usual spelling and syntax corrections, how am I doing?
-
Brad Guth


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