Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon

"TeaTime" wrote in message


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:1750ae77a57e6221505dcb964c7522d8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...

usual total disregard for other poster's comment and question snipped

... and that's why I stepped in and answered Paul's question, in plain
English, with not a trace of taboo, non-disclosure, X-rating, banishment, or
any other of your stupid paranpid bull****. See how simple it is, really?

As far as I could tell, Paul had no apparent question about anything
Lagrange related, as that's pretty well covered by Sir Arthur Clarke and
countless others. However, there was a fairly obvious hint of a
"comunications possibilities" question that obviously your trigger happy
if not equally lose cannon mindset entirely missed.

Thanks anyway for telling us what we already know, or at least should
have known. I do have a few Lagrange related questions for another
time, that is if you're still interested in being so nice about sharing
your expertise.

Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
this.

BTW; why are you and so many others of your kind being so anti
SI/metric?
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:3e3971d0690e5a4b1db061de1dc51f5c.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...

As far as I could tell, Paul had no apparent question about anything
Lagrange related, as that's pretty well covered by Sir Arthur Clarke and
countless others. However, there was a fairly obvious hint of a
"comunications possibilities" question that obviously your trigger happy
if not equally lose cannon mindset entirely missed.
Thanks anyway for telling us what we already know, or at least should
have known. I do have a few Lagrange related questions for another
time, that is if you're still interested in being so nice about sharing
your expertise.

Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks. I realise you
would already know about it or you wouldn't post about it so
enthusiastically. As a matter of interest, I take it you are aware that the
SOHO satellite enjoys its unobstructed view of the sun from earth's L1
libration point? Like the moon's L1, it isn't a point of stable equilibrium
so that SOHO requires a little fuel every few months to nudge it back into
position.

Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
this.

What do you mean by 'Usenet postal' ? I read posts on this group on a daily
basis with considerable interest and post a response wherever I think I can
make an interesting or humorous contribution.

BTW; why are you and so many others of your kind being so anti
SI/metric?

For my own part, as a professional engineer living in the UK and working
worldwide, I use nothing but S.I. units on a daily basis. When we converse
colloquially, both here and in the USA, we still talk about miles as they
remain more familiar to many people. Road signs here are still in miles for
some odd reason, though it is actually illegal for our shopkeepers to sell
their produce in anything but kilogrammes and litres. It's a whacky old
world and I suspect full metrification, both official and social, will take
a few more years. See? I give you an inch and you take a mile.

TeaTime wrote:

Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks.

Thanks to both of you for filling in the blanks and getting me to first
base on this. A further set of queries occurs to me:

If something is orbiting the earth more or less coincident with the
moon, I assume that communicating with it from the earth will require
some frequencies and/or technologies which will prevent it from
interfering with GEO or LEO communications.

Has the ITU considered this in its little red books and has anyone
applied for licenses to use such frequencies. That would be a practical
thing for nation states to do if they wanted to build something out
there, I would think.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:04:35 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
wrote:

teatime,
--

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

"TeaTime" wrote in message


Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks. I realise you
would already know about it or you wouldn't post about it so
enthusiastically. As a matter of interest, I take it you are aware that the
SOHO satellite enjoys its unobstructed view of the sun from earth's L1
libration point? Like the moon's L1, it isn't a point of stable equilibrium
so that SOHO requires a little fuel every few months to nudge it back into
position.

Thanks much for the constructive feedback.

How much station-keeping fuel per tonne per lunar month are we talking
about, of staying within the interactive zone of our moon's L1?

Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
this.

What do you mean by 'Usenet postal' ? I read posts on this group on a daily
basis with considerable interest and post a response wherever I think I can
make an interesting or humorous contribution.

Going Usenet postal is simply my catch phrase for others doing somewhat
exactly as I with my battery of lose cannons in order to defend myself,
especially when folks arrive as seemingly out of nowhere (as though
topic/author stalking) in order to enter an established topic, and right
off the bat they go into another one of their all or nothing naysay
modes, and/or tear off in an entirely different out-of-context direction
because they obviously don't like me or hardly anyone else for that
matter.

Those topic/author stalking with no honest intentions of constructively
contributing to the given intent of the topic at hand are in my koran
more than worthy of being classified as going usenet postal. It's also
what folks tend to do if they're crazy with ulterior motives and hidden
agendas that are at risk. If I can manage to return the warm and fuzzy
favor, I do so with all the love and affection I can muster, as to rock
their good ship LOLLIPOP until it hopefully sinks, along with all of
such naysay fools onboard.

For my own part, as a professional engineer living in the UK and working
worldwide, I use nothing but S.I. units on a daily basis. When we converse
colloquially, both here and in the USA, we still talk about miles as they
remain more familiar to many people. Road signs here are still in miles for
some odd reason, though it is actually illegal for our shopkeepers to sell
their produce in anything but kilogrammes and litres. It's a whacky old
world and I suspect full metrification, both official and social, will take
a few more years. See? I give you an inch and you take a mile.

Just for being a good sport, I think we should stick with S.I. units,
which is still a somewhat tricky matter for my dyslexic self. Unlike
most others wizards within this Usenet naysay land, at least I'm willing
to learn in order to go along with the majority flow of this world,
which for good reason has been metric for decades.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Paul Mc" wrote in message
ups.com

If something is orbiting the earth more or less coincident with the
moon, I assume that communicating with it from the earth will require
some frequencies and/or technologies which will prevent it from
interfering with GEO or LEO communications.

Has the ITU considered this in its little red books and has anyone
applied for licenses to use such frequencies. That would be a practical
thing for nation states to do if they wanted to build something out
there, I would think.

I find it rather odd that these folks that usually claim as being such
all-knowing wizards can't manage to constructively contribute to your
request.

Terrestrial and/or of whatever's of terrestrial satellite communications
with whatever's utilizing the moon's L1 isn't the least bit of a problem
for existing technology, especially if using FM/quantum binary packets
via laser beams.

Might I further ask; How many terabytes per second or rather per ms
would you like to transfer?
-
Brad Guth


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

Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon

It seems that our trusty moon, as having represented such a terrific
mascon of forced global warming to our environment ever since the last
ice age, is still more off-limits than Venus, whereas Venus is simply
need-to-know or Old Testament nondisclosure sequestered for the moment
(in mainstream status quo damage-control limbo because the planetology
of Venus simply isn't as old as Earth, and worse yet, it looks as though
we wouldn't be the first of intelligent souls having set a hot foot on
Venus).

Speaking a little about 'microgravity'; as such it's actually hard to
come by and harder yet to sustain unless you're in a fast LEO orbit and
therefore having to push yourself through 8 km/s worth of headwinds
(worse yet if you're in retrograde mode), or simply best accommodated if
you are out and about while literally hanging nearly effortlessly around
or rather within our moon's interactive L1 nullification zone.

If we are intent and thereby serious upon going for other planets or
other moons of such other planets, as such we could really use our
moon's L1 for accommodating our next ISS or whatever POOF or Clarke
Station as our do-everything space depot. In fact, if we're merely
going for our moon, it's rather nifty if not technically essential for
having the mission command platform as coasting safely and efficiently
at roughly r34, thereby sustaining an average velocity of roughly 866
m/s with respect to Earth, as parallel parked or rather coasting nearly
effortlessly along within this ME-L1 pocket of nearby space that's about
as devoid of atoms as it gets.

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 fully
utilizing this nifty interactive space that's so nearby. In other
words, all morons and/or the dumb and dumber sorts of village idiot
snookered fools, especially the dumbfounded naysayer's of Usenet, 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 or space depot 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 (a core of roughly 1280 meters), it's placed a wee bit further
towards Earth (perhaps r35~r36, averaging 60,830 km @861 km/s to 62,568
km @856 m/s) while multi-tethered directly to the moon, and there are a
few nifty interactive elements involved. The massive hull or shell of
this CM/ISS may or may not have to spin, as there are personal
artificial gravity alternatives that would function from within this
well shielded environment.

The LSE-CM/ISS can eventually reside at the moon's 34r (59,092 km), with
those counter rotating flywheels of energy storage being sustained at
r33.5 or whatever's exactly L1 (+/- 1 microgravity) once the tether
dipole element is extended to within 4r(25,512 km) of Earth (or perhaps
r6/38,268 is close enough). Over time the affect of this installation
would somewhat moderate the elliptical lunar orbit and could even reduce
and/or eliminate the rate of recession, whereas some open mindset folks
might tend to think this outcome is a good thing.

Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
So, I'll have to keep asking, why are so many of you folks (as
all-knowing as you've claimed to be) getting yourselves so gosh darn
huffy or otherwise naysay 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 China becoming smarter and
having been wiser than most of us, and having been increasing that lead,
as such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order to
accommodate their less fortunate (Mandarin illiterate) 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 somehow established
an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters of h2o if w/o
magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from
our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's providing
a not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation) dosage worth of 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, the Clarke Station document itself gives hardly a mention on
behalf of the tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space
exploration or the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed
environment, and oddly it's still not having squat to do with any task
of actually developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon
itself. The document talks as though the moon doesn't hardly exist,
which is rather unfortunate since we'll be in need of such raw elements
and vast energy resources of the moon and from the L1 dipole as we
manage to run ourselves out of terrestrial fossil and yellowcake fuels
(can't hardly wage WW-IV w/o energy), as we continue to dim the albedo
of our Earth with as much energy consuming soot and otherwise toxic
chemical pollution as we can muster.

If you folks need my list of related subtopics before getting involved,
as such I'll do just that because, I have far more questions than
answers to share. Also, if you can place a copy of this topic into
NASA's "uplink.space.com" or even Usenet "cam.misc" and of similar
groups (especially of those moderated to death) that might appreciate a
good challenge or poke in the eye with a sharp stick, please do as much
as you can get away with.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:

Terrestrial and/or of whatever's of terrestrial satellite communications
with whatever's utilizing the moon's L1 isn't the least bit of a problem
for existing technology, especially if using FM/quantum binary packets
via laser beams.

Might I further ask; How many terabytes per second or rather per ms
would you like to transfer?

Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
or are you taking about satellite to station communications?

"Paul Mc" wrote in message
ups.com

Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
or are you taking about satellite to station communications?

No problem.

Laser beam communication works best external to atmosphere, thus the
further away or between planets or that of a given planet/moon or binary
planet L1 situation the better for such laser beams achieving the most
two-way range per joule.

However, a laser beam can be configured in order to function to/from the
surface of Venus, transferring if need be a terabyte/ms is still
technically doable, especially if that's being accomplished to/from
Venus L2, or quite possibly as to/from our moon's L1.

Earth to Venus is even doable, although it'll obviously demand more
initial beam energy and there may be significant data throughput
limitations. Without a Venus satellite or at least that of a rigid
airship cruising above them thick clouds, as such there's no laser
communications capability of Venusians specifically hitting Earth with
any such beam of photons, although cloud-top illuminations of their
FM/quantum modulated packets are certainly doable.

Remember that at times (roughly every 19 months/584 days), Venus is only
100 fold the distance as that of our physically dark and somewhat salty
moon.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Paul Mc" wrote in message
ups.com...
Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
or are you taking about satellite to station communications?

Yes, out in space laser beams are an ideal medium for telemetry of all
kinds. The most recent searches for extraterrestrial life have been in the
visible spectrum (OSETI) in the expectation that other civilisations might
use high-energy lasers as rotating beacons to send out a welcome note.
Light photons travel on through space forever. That is how we can see
distant galaxies thousands of millions of light-years away. Visible red or
infrared types are ideal in the space environment, whilst for penetrating
cloudy atmospheres the longer infrared wavelengths are more effective.
increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of principle, but
will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter; and adequate
onboard memory. Sev-to receive transmissions from spacecraft in various
orbits.Ground receiving stations are simply large optical telescopes, which
we knowhow to build. On high mountain tops, the atmosphere transmits signals
from spaceto ground with a satisfactory efficiency of 70% at 1500-1600nm.
Signal power on-board spacecraft can be provided by existing laser diodes
amplified by Erbium
increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of principle, but
will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter; and adequate
onboard memory. Sev-eral well-separated mountain-top receiving stations
around the globe are also neededto receive transmissions from spacecraft in
various orbits.increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of
principle, but will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter;
and adequate onboard memory. Sev-eral well-separated mountain-top receiving
stations around the globe are also neededto receive transmissions from
spacecraft in various orbits.Ground receiving stations are simply large
optical telescopes, which we knowhow to build. On high mountain tops, the
atmosphere transmits signals from spaceto ground with a satisfactory
efficiency of 70% at 1500-1600nm. Signal power on-board spacecraft can be
provided by existing laser diodes amplified by Erbium Doped3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Fiber Amplifiers (EDFA) or Raman amplifiers, both in extensive use at 1550nm
in thetelecommunications industry (6). To obtain sufficient bandwidth, Dense
Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a widely used technique in the
telecommunicationsindustry, can be employed (7). The spacecraft transmitter
can be a 1-meter-class tele-scope with high pointing accuracy and adaptive
optics to assure a properly collimatedbeam. The only component not readily
available is the onboard memory required tostore up to several days' worth
of collected data.A data gathering rate of 1 Gbps accumulates ? 1014bits of
information in thecourse of a day. Commercially available solid state
memories store up to ? 128gigabytes of memory, or 1012bits. If current
growth rates are sustained, the requiredfactor of ? 100 increase in memory
capacity will become commercially availablewithin 10 to 15 years.If we start
serious work towards a functioning near-infrared telemetry systemtoday, an
effective system can be available in 10 - 15 years to fully service
missionsnow on the drawing boards. The lead must come from the scientific
community. TheU. S. National Academy of Sciences has recognized the problem
(8), but energeticaction will be required to prevent a data transmission
bottleneck from reaching crisisproportions.Because the fiber-optics
communications industry already provides most of the4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
individual components required for near-infrared laser telemetry, and
componentsnot yet available should come on the market in the decade ahead,
work towards anear-infrared telemetry system carries little risk and will
rapidly pay for itself in theefficiency with which data can be gathered and
transmitted. Meteorology, climato-logical observations, oceanography,
geophysical studies, planetary exploration, andastrophysics will all
benefit. However, progress will come about only with the alloca-tion of
sufficient resources by NASA and ESA - the two lead agencies in the
field -and the focused attention of the scientific
community.AcknowledgmentThe work of MH is supported by contracts from
NASA.References and Notes1. Long-range plans for future space missions
include arrays with 109pixels with highdynamic range and readout times of
the order of seconds.2. Starck, J.- L. et al., 1999, Astronomy &
Astrophysics Supplement, 138, 365 -380.3. Manual of Regulations & Procedures
for Federal Radio Frequency Management5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
(the"Red Book"), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/CHP04.pdf, pages
70- 91.4. Free-Space Laser Communication Technologies XIII, edited by G.
StephenMecherie, Proceedings of SPIE, volume 4272, 24-25 January 2001, San
Jose, CA,USA.5. "Perfect images transmitted via laser link between Artemis
and SPOT 4",European Space Agency press release No. 75-2001, Paris, 6
December, 2001; also,"Lasers link orbiting satellites," 23 November, 2001,
Optics.org, The Online PhotonicsResource:
http://optics.org/article/news/7/11/23.6. P. C. Becker, N.A. Olson & J.R.
Simpson Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifiers:Fundamentals and Technology, Academic
Press, 1999.Five years ago, the European Space Agency (ESA) demonstrated
near-
infrared laser communication between the SPOT-4 and Artemis orbiting
satellitesinfrared laser communication between the SPOT-4 and Artemis
orbiting satellites. Initial tests used experimental data rates of only 50
Mbps.This rate can be increased by factors of thousands without basic
changes in principle, but requires increased signal power, a suitable
transmitter and adequate onboard memory. Several well separated mountain-top
receiving stations around the globe are also needed to receive transmissions
from spacecraft in various orbits. Ground receiving stations are simply
large optical telescopes, which we know how to build. On high mountain tops,
the atmosphere transmits signals from space to ground with a satisfactory
efficiency of 70% at 1500-1600nanometres wavelength (long infrared).
Signal power onboard spacecraft can be provided by existing laser diodes
amplified by erbium doped fibre Amplifiers (EDFA) or Raman amplifiers, both
in extensive use at 1550nm in the telecommunications industry. To obtain
sufficient bandwidth, Dense Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a
widely used technique in the telecommunications industry, can be employed.
The spacecraft transmitter can be a 1-meter-class telescope with high
pointing accuracy and adaptive optics to assure a properly collimated beam.