Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus

"Brad Guth" wrote:

:Thanks for the good feedback.
:
:However, only half of our moon gets seriously hot and nasty, whereas the
ther half remains downright cold and nasty (though remaining somewhat
:insulated because it's within a near vacuum).

Excuse me? Why would that be? Are you implying the Earth's is
tidally locked to the Sun? For that to be true the orbit of the Moon
would have to be perpendicular to the ecliptic.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Wasn't it Brad Guth who wrote:
Thanks for the good feedback.

However, only half of our moon gets seriously hot and nasty, whereas the
other half remains downright cold and nasty (though remaining somewhat
insulated because it's within a near vacuum). The shift from being too
hot to getting too cold is somewhat gradual, ideal for solid/vapor phase
changing.

The fact that the moon gets cold from time to time doesn't help much.
When the atmosphere has leaked away into space during the daytime,
there'll be nothing left to condense at night.

It's no good locking your garage at night if someone already stole your
car during the day.

With 1.623 m/s and the greater initial mass of using CO2/Rn should stick
around, even when it gets reasonably hot and nasty, and blown by 600
km/s solar winds.

The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s).

Mixing the gas you want with a heavier gas doesn't help. The heavier gas
sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various types of molecules
settle down to having the same average kinetic energy, but that means
that the lighter molecules move faster than the heavier ones. They move
just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier molecules were not present.

There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular mass
and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average 260m/s
which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules (m=28) on
the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a fifth of the
escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all molecules travel at
the average velocity, some travel faster and leak away. The Earth isn't
able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they average about a fifth of
Earth's escape velocity.

Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Mind-Set Correction;

However, only half of our moon gets seriously hot and nasty AT ANY ONE
TIME, whereas the other half remains downright cold and nasty (though
remaining somewhat insulated because it's within a near vacuum).

Why did you intentionally exclude my closing sentence:
"The shift from being too hot to getting too cold is somewhat gradual,
ideal for solid/vapor phase changing."

Wasn't that sufficiently inferring a rather obvious factor of gradual
ROTATION?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

In other words of your highly critical but most likely correct
interpretations;

It's almost as though you're insisting that no matters what is delivered
and/or created as a vapor of free atoms, regardless of their individual
mass, absolutely every stinking atom gets summarily extracted/blown off
the moon from the solar wind. And, that regardless of what's delivered
and/or created on the spot, that in no possible way would the hot/cold
thermal environment of the moon shift.

Perhaps that's another good reason why essentially naked astronauts
couldn't so easily have walked upon the moon, as besides all of the
horrific secondary TBI worth of hard-X-Rays and of having to dodge every
30+km/s arriving dust-bunny, they'd have to keep leaning their 85%
reflective moonsuits into all that continual 30+km/s (+/- 1 km/s)
orbital wind, plus managing against whatever solar wind is passing by at
600+km/s. Perhaps that's why the bulk of the surface obtained images are
those reflecting at the index of 55%, as opposed to the natural
basalt/coal like actual environment of the moon.

I'd consider the likes of CO2 and Rn as extremely useful gas elements,
as that's all the deployment of robotics care about, and I believe even
O2 is somewhat at the threshold of sticking around once a the thermal
moderation is transpiring as a result of a thousand tonnes of delivered
CO2/Rn is contributed to the remaining basalt vapors created by the
deliver/impact of the CO2/Rn. Of course the CO2 would soon act as a
cloak or thermal conductive layer protecting the thermally conductive
Rn, whereas in time the illuminated side starts sharing a few trillion
BTUs with the nighttime side, eventually the entire moon becomes
moderated enough to hold onto nearly all of the newly created O2
released form impacting the lunar basalt.

BTW; this process of thermal moderation might take only a few months.

Thanks for the JavaScript link. I'll check it out to see where other
elements might become interesting. There might even be something as
nasty as Rn that folks here on Earth would be willing to pay me big
bucks/euros just to get rid of it. Spent nuclear fuel rods could be one
of those items, whereas I could start turning a hansom profit long
before establishing the LSE-CM/ISS.

What sort of heavy elements would a spent nuclear fuel rod vaporise
itself into?

How about VX gas, and/or the combined weapons containing VX?

How about the DNA of a few warlords that suck?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

Terraforming the moon from the backside;
Interesting how the terminal velocity of space travel has been avoided
as a viable topic. Apparently there's no such thing, much like how fast
items would drop onto the moon if they weren't intentionally set into
orbiting but directed as to impact is meaningless dribble. Even as to
the old gibberish of how well ice would survive in space travel, or even
that of dry-ice seems to remain as somewhat of a nondisclosure mystery,
as to it's longevity if such were released into orbit about Earth (say
from ISS) or especially if that dry-ice were being directed at the moon.

I guess our not knowing any of this potential from actual science as to
the transport of water-ice or even dry-ice through space, that such
science is entirely useless knowledge.

Too bad we have no viable way of accomplishing such complex science
about such useless substances as water-ice and dry-ice, and especially
nothing whatsoever in conjunction with our moon. As I was foolishly
thinking of using said dry-ice as those necessary impactors for
artificially inducing the moon into retaining considerably more than the
vaporised dry-ice itself, as for creating a viable lunar atmosphere.

It seems that since our spendy mission DEEP IMPACT of a comet is
supposedly going to involve 10+km/s as it forms a rather nasty crater by
way of their impactor displacing and vaporising roughly 100,000 m3 worth
of whatever substance away from the intended target, accomplishing this
nifty task by utilizing a mere copper bullet worth of an object having a
total mass of 372 kg that'll be responsible for accomplishing perhaps
100e6 kg worth of kinetic impact into that comet which might conceivably
be of snow and ice, or 159e6 kg if it's purely dry-ice, and or
conceivably a mixture of rock and dry-ice that might otherwise exceed
200e6 kg being nicely vaporised if their intended crater of 300' by 100
foot depth is accomplished. Of course, it might pass entirely through
the collective of comet debris and the plasma cloud that's associated
with the terminal velocity of space which supposedly doesn't exist,
terminal velocity that is.

Using 372 kg at 10 km/s, I believe their own formula of KE=.5MV2 equates
into 18.6e9 kg or 18.6e6 tonnes worth of potential kinetic energy, of
which should in fact create that sort of 91 by 30 meter crater, with
energy to spare.

Therefore, I was re-thinking about the release of basalt impactors from
the tethered lunar platform residing at 64,000 km, whereas instead if
merely directing that basalt towards the moon at perhaps an initial few
meters/sec, how about giving an opposing set of basalt impactors a good
opposing shot at those items arriving on the lunar backside, whereas it
seems the gravity influence from the lunar L2 side of this equation is
going to become worth double trouble in River City. As such, I was
wondering if there's an available on-line calculator for this sort of
trajectory, or if there's an actual math wizard that's not afraid of the
dark (afraid of the dark meaning; afraid of having anything whatsoever
to do with our moon that might upset the NASA/Apollo space time
continuum of snookering thy humanity).

Given an appropriate initial thrust away from the relocated ISS or the
LSE-CM/ISS as to insure those impactors arrive appropriately into the
back side of the moon where dual gravity is working together is only
going to improve their final impact results, thus enhancing the ratio of
vapourising the surface by a ratio of something better than 1e6:1 of
whatever those impactors amounted to. Be those of an artificial impactor
of dry-ice with a healthy core of frozen radon(Rn), or merely those of
raw chunks of basalt as obtained robotically extracted from our side and
then deployed from somewhere near the ME-L1 zone, of which this method
should permit a fairly slight energy effort in having to launch pairs of
said impactors in exact opposit directions, so that each would end up by
impacting somewhere on the opposit side of the moon, where the dual
gravity influence should contribute to their maximum kinetic energy.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

There are some major hiccups in your plans that I am not sure you are
aware of. It seems that you wish to develop many systems in Space and
gain a profit from these ventures.

First, The U.S., U.K., Russia, China and many other countries of the
United Nations drafted and ratified a treaty decades ago specifically
regarding the Moon, other celestial bodies and Outer Space in general.

Most of your ideas directly conflict with international law. This
could cause severe problems in getting your ideas to be taken
seriously.

From the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies:

Article 2

All activities on the Moon, including its exploration and use, shall be
carried out in accordance with international law, in particular the
Charter of the United Nations, and taking into account the Declaration
on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and
Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations, adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970, in the
interest 5 of maintaining international peace and security and
promoting international cooperation and mutual understanding, and with
due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties.

Article 11

1. The Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of
mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of this
Agreement, in particular in paragraph 5 of this article.

2. The Moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of
sovereignty, by means of use
or occupation, or by any other means.

3. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part
thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any
State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental
organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of
any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles,
equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the
surface of the Moon, including structures connected with its surface or
subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or
the subsurface of the Moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing
provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred
to in paragraph 5 of this article.

These two articles clearly outline the problem of any individual or
corporation ever terraforming the moon or profiting from any activities
there. One cannot sell something they do not own.

As for storing nuclear anything, chemical weapons, etc. the

Article 7

1. In exploring and using the Moon, States Parties shall take measures
to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment,
whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its
harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental
matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid
harmfully affecting the environment of the Earth through the
introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.

2. States Parties shall inform the Secretary-General of the United
Nations of the measures being adopted by them in accordance with
paragraph 1 of this article and shall also, to the maximum extent
feasible, notify him in advance of all placements by them of
radioactive materials on the Moon and of the purposes of such
placements.

3. States Parties shall report to other States Parties and to the
Secretary-General concerning areas of the Moon having special
scientific interest in order that, without prejudice to the rights of
other States Parties, consideration may be given to the designation of
such areas as international scientific preserves for which special
protective arrangements are to be agreed upon in consultation with the
competent bodies of the United Nations.

As I'm sure you've notices Section 1 of Article 7 of the Agreement
Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies poses a serious problem for anyone who wishes to terraform the
moon. Personally, I don't think it will happen. Not because of
scientific reasons, but due to political agreements such as this one.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/Reports/AC105_722E.pdf
http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

Garuda,
There you go again with all the social/political crapolla. Instead of
focusing upon helping humanity, of drastically improving the long-term
environment of mother Earth, you're insisting that we keep the cold-war
status quo enforced by way of fighting to our deaths over a shrinking
world of rising oceans and depleted energy resources until them Apollo
cows come home.

Don't you think for a freaking minute that the survival of humanity and
of all that's Earth is worth better than squat?

The moon and specifically the LSE-CM/ISS outpost or depot/Gateway to
just about everywhere else is what I'd call a first come first served
situation. It's finders keepers and to hell with whomever else is
getting in the way. At least that's been the way of securing every other
valuable resource upon Earth, and throughout history at that.

What's wrong with China having total control over the ME-L1 zone?

Even Osama bin Laden wouldn't be as bad off as Halburton or ENRON.

Obviously there'll be countless individuals that'll just as soon start
WW-III as to allow whomever to get the upper hand on whatever our moon
has to offer. That's why I've been suggesting that we relocate ISS to
the moon, and thus from within that vantage point we internationally
start the process of creating the truly massive infrastructure of the
full blown LSE.

Of course, our American part in this accomplishment could become
utilized as the ultimate star-wars domination over Earth, especially of
operating the tether dipole element that's cruising those 0.5
milliradian 100 GW laser cannons within 50,000 km and, if you're an
American or simply one of our few allies, that's a good thing.

"Most of your ideas directly conflict with international law. This
could cause severe problems in getting your ideas to be taken
seriously."

Actually, most of my ideas conflict with the mainstream status quo which
surpasses your "international law" any stinking day of the week. Since
when have major governments or their corporate sponsors for profit
played by any stinking "international law", much less moral rules, other
than the one about their not getting caught?

I believe if there were such enforceable "international law" we would
have been held accountable for the perpetrated cold-war, and especially
of what's ongoing as of today.

Speaking of terraforming the moon;
"Personally, I don't think it will happen. Not because of scientific
reasons, but due to political agreements such as this one."

Unfortunately that's correct, as it'll first have to become the total
demise upon our placing mother Earth deeply (beyond the point of no
return) into extinction mode of all other viable forms of life that
could have sustained humanity and our environment. Thanks to folks and
their snookered mind-set that are somewhat like yourself, we're at half
the diatom population and dropping like a rock, thus we're all doomed to
a global-warming environment of rising oceans, atmospheric extremes plus
unimaginable storms, and those ever expanding dead-zones within our
oceans, lakes and rivers.

You can't go about shifting the albedo of Earth by -5% without suffering
the consequences.

Fortunately, since half the ice in Antarctica is going away, and we're
about to lose 25% of the other dry land we've got, there'll soon become
another piece of dry and unfrozen land for humanity to fight over, as to
populate and pollute, and the Arctic should remain as nearly ice free
year round, thus more efficient shipping and accessible ocean for all
those nifty submarine war-games that you so much admire.

BTW; It sounds as though you've got yourself a rather serious pot full
of NG and oil investments, possibly even some fairly old energy related
stock options that you'd like to take advantage of, so as to get the
most almighty bang for your buck/euro.

Perhaps since we're doomed into WW-III sooner or later (GW Bush prepping
our capital for surviving a nuclear exchange), as such isn't this quest
of terraforming the moon on behalf of making the lunar surface at least
robotically suitable as good of reason as any to fight over?

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

Garuda,
I'm not saying that folks like yourself shouldn't remain guarded, as the
last thing we need is for the status quo of our resident blood sucking
warlords and of all their snookered mainstreamers backing those
warloards that are currently intent upon justifying our going after
global control of the remaining natural gas and oil reserves, whereas to
even think of allowing those perverted morons ever touching our moon
that's offering humanity the sort of potential that the likes of
ENRON/Andersen and Bush/Cheney and their partners in crimes against
humanity would lie their stinking butts off and literally kill for such
profits from helium-3, or perhaps best upon devising another bogus
dog-wagging method of keeping it from ever being utilized until the very
last m3 of their natural gas and the last spendy drop of their polluting
oil gets sold to the highest bidder, is entirely imoral.

What I'm trying to suggest is that we go for developing the necessary
fly-by-rocket lander technology and also go about the task of relocating
ISS to the moon as soon as possible, establishing our claim upon the
ME-L1 zone, as well as dominating everyting that's between Earth and
that zone, plus totally lord over the lunar terratory below, with the
focused intent of pillaging the moon to a fairlywell.

Extracting He3/3He and exporting that substance to Earth should have
become priority-1 decades ago. Whereas He3 arrivial upon Earth and
subsequent placement into clean fusion reactors, lo and behold the value
of natural gas and oil should fall into the nearest toilet (I'd like to
see $10/barrel or less), taking the buying power away from those
continually profiting at the demise of humanity, while at the same time
giving the less fortunate nations an affordable source of relatively
cheap natural gas and oil that'll be in good surplus ever since the
really big energy sucking nations of this world have switched over to
primarily fusion.

If the free world was primarily fusion based, secondly nuclear, thirdly
hydroelectric and the remainder as solar and wind energy, that plus
whatever a few nations that can already develop and export as liquified
hydrogen seems to be suggesting that we can start telling the oil rich
to go stuff it.

I'd like to think/dream that America is going to get itself smart enough
as to become 75% fusion, with the remainder as 15% hydroelectric and 10%
from the likes of solar and wind energy, thus nothing need be nuclear
and not another drop of imported oil need be obtained, much less burned
off in order to produce energy at the continuing risk of creating so
darn much artificial CO2.

Spare/surplus energy from the likes of clean fusion, hydroelectric,
solar and wind can go into producing, storing and distributing hydrogen.
In our case the existing gas and oil reserves on American soil or under
our coastal waters should be sufficient for many centuries to come,
affording sufficient and cheaper fuel oil for heavy machinery and
aircraft that can't as of yet operate directly from fusion, nor afforde
the space requirements of burning H2. Although, the likes of H2O2/C12H26
would certainly improve things by way of extending the fuel oil energy
output 7.5:1, and to think that it only takes a resource of clean energy
in order to manufacture the likes of H2O2 (that sort of fuel can fly).

BTW; there's all sorts of absolutely nifty advantages and technological
benefits as well as improvements to the environment for using
H2O2/C12H26 within IRRC engines that are extremely compact, energy
conversion efficient and extra clean burning. The IRRCE isn't science
fiction, it's not even science future, it's actually been science placed
on hold for the past several decades because it's so darn good and, for
all the right reasons the right sort of thing that we should have been
doing from the very get-go.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


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

On 25 Jan 2005 22:33:03 -0800, Garuda wrote:

1. In exploring and using the Moon, States Parties shall take measures
to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment,
whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its
harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental
matter or otherwise.

standard_resonse
Polluting the Moon could turn it into a lifeless desert!
/standard_resonse

--
http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com

"Joseph Hertzlinger" m
wrote in message nk.net...

Polluting the Moon could turn it into a lifeless desert!

You're reminding me of a science fiction story I read where an industrialist
wanted to mine the moon, or an asteroid, or some such, and was informed by
the government that he would have to fill out an Environmental Impact
Statement. He submitted a piece of paper with 4 words: "No environment, no
impact".

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.