|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking by 38 mm/year
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rHTub.19859$vJ6.15193@fed1read05...
Dear Brad Guth: "Brad Guth" wrote in message om... \(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:ovzub.12009$vJ6.10338@fed1read05... Dear Brad Guth: "Brad Guth" wrote in message om... Obviously there's tidal gravitational forces continuously at work, as otherwise something as massive as the Earth/Moon union would become one. A real sidelight, but I don't think they would "become one". I think that in the existing system, there is enough angular momentum that there is no way a single "partially liquid" body wouldn't spin out one or more lobes. You might jam the two together, but I don't think they'd stay together. That's certainly a good thing to know about. Any better notion upon my village idiot efforts at obtaining the kinetic energy requirement for just sustaining the lunar orbit? Zero additional energy should do OK. The solar wind boosts one side, and retards the other. The earth would have to freeze solid for all eternity, of course. All the way down to the core. Might as well tidally lock it as well. Otherwise, it'll just continue to gain angular momentum from the Earth. Should pretty much stop the recession... David A. Smith I agree about the solar wind being a given "zero". From: MLuttgens ) http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e... site%3Dgroups "To calculate the effects of the deceleration on the orbit of planets (or satellites)" "According to LLR data, the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year. Such increase of orbital distance, attributed to tidal effects on Earth, could mask the present small decrease of 1.87 cm/year." Unless I've misunderstood as usual, this above page seems to be indicating that the coefficient of lunar orbital friction is actually quite a fair percentage upon the overall scheme of things, as 1.87 cm/year is nearly half of the 3.8 cm of reported recession, thereby the overall energy necessary in order to impose the 3.8 cm/year recession may in fact become a factor of 3.8 + 1.87 = 5.67 cm/year, which in turn might further suggest 6 terawatts worth instead of my initial guestimate of 5 terawatts that was based upon adding one terawatt to what Marvin ) specified as to his calculations being 4 terawatts worth of recession energy (excluding matters of friction) that was capable of inducing the 3.8 cm/year. A satellite of the rough area of the moon, cutting through at the very least viscosity of 6e6 atoms/m3 at 1.025 km/s (more likely density 6e9/m3) will require some portion of said tidal energy just for sustaining the status quo. If it were not for the tidal gravity doing its thing, seems like an orbit degrade of 1.87 cm/year is sufficiently reasonable (nothing is forever). Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking by 38 mm/year
The moon is in fact leaving us behind in it's dust, or perhaps
clumping moon dirt. Though Earth is also shrinking by leaps and bounds, with our precious energy leaking out in more ways than you can shake that flaming stick at. Unfortunately, China or perhaps even India if not ESA is going to be actually on the moon, or of at least hovering over it, as in establishing their first come first served as for creating their LSE-CM/ISS, as for there being room for only one of these suckers. The following rant is yet another infomercial on behalf of sanity, on behalf of humanity and on behalf of accomplishing what's been doable for well over a decade. BTW; just in case some nice folks haven't discovered what the likes of wizard Jay is all about, checkout some of the following and be sure to reflect upon those two quotes offered by Lord Jay Windley. "The moon, the Apollo ruse/sting, the snookered fools we are" The lunar environment is obviously not moderated by any significant atmosphere nor Van Allen belt, thus of the solar/cosmic, cosmic and gamma ray exposures are unimpeded, and as such the radiation environment is hardly being stabilized nor averaged over time. It's either too damn hot or too damn cold or too freaking lethal unless you're enjoying all of it by earthshine, though not to mention having to avoid the somewhat pesky issue of it raining micro meteorites. The space/solar weather of such nasty stuff includes a great deal of the relatively passive warmth of IR, on into the somewhat lethal UV spectrums, either of which can be fended off by relatively low technology, although UV/c can start to be a bit penetrating unless there's an artificial barrier of sufficient solids, such as any good moon suit will suffice. Higher frequency and thus high energy is not so easily stopped by any moon suit, and of what is being slowed down and/or partially absorbed by the suit, or by way of most any substance, is what creates those hard x-ray class radiation issues. Actually the greater the material density the greater the secondary impact becomes, especially at the thickness and/or density per square centimeter of what our Apollo mission had to work with. Of too little shielding and you're affected by the direct radiation impact, of thicker shield and/or of greater density obviously blocks more of the primary influx while creating greater and even somewhat more lethal hard x-ray class dosage. Depending upon what sort of influx or solar flak is hitting your exterior environment, such as cosmic and/or gamma can obviously make a rather tremendous difference of mostly negative issues as far as protecting life as we know it. Just like our sun can deliver relatively passive and low energy dosages, while at times the solar output offers the capability and/or intensity of exceeding several thousand rads per hour, which is not a serious exposure problem if you've got a healthy Van Allen zone plus tonnes of atmosphere per m2 as your shield, and not that thousands of folks don't go about expiring each and every year specifically due to their receiving too much solar and cosmic radiation. When those several thousand rads per hour impact a substance such as clumping moon dirt, a matrix of many things that should represent 3.4+g/cc, this is where the somewhat lethal solar flux that's just plain old nasty becomes downright lethal within an hour's worth of exposure. Thus the lunar surface exposed to a passive solar environment might lull itself into creating a mere 100 rads (1 Sv) per day (24 hours or a respectable 4.17 rads/hr), although the sun wasn't in any passive mode nor was the solar activity sufficient as to fend off the cosmic and gamma ray aspects, thus the combined surface impact for whatever and/or whomever was certainly capable of creating 360 rads per day (15 rads/hr), that is if you're honestly accounting for the secondary contributions of what the lunar surface itself was capable of creating. Your standard issue moon suit can cut the likes of direct solar radiation, mostly because at least for some of the passive/thermal solar event timeline isn't itself of lethal hard x-ray class, although of whatever does impact the suit and mostly of what impacts the lunar surface will be creating a fairly large TBI worthy dosage. More recent solar events such as those of October/November 2003 were off the scale, so strong that of our best instruments were essentially blown away. Fortunately there were only much smaller ongoing solar events during the Apollo mission era, which was a good thing as for fending off some of the cosmic class radiation, though representing a truly bad sort of thing as for any space expedition that's as close as we were to our sun. As for being further away from the sun, such as Mars, offers a solar environment safety improvement, though somewhat worse off as for allowing more cosmic radiation to impact and subsequently interact with whatever and/or whomever is anywhere near and/or situated behind a substance that's not sufficiently thick enough as to block and otherwise absorb all of the influx, plus having to subdue secondary hard x-ray class radiation before it gets to your butt. It seems we currently have a wee bit of a problem in placing sufficient mass into orbit, much less headed off to places like the moon or Mars, thus our manned missions off to whatever is residing outside our Van Allen zone of death are essentially unresolved issues as of today, though not insurmountable. The absolute proof that it's truly nasty beyond our Van Allen zone of death is in the pudding, in the fact that there's been an effort to skew and/or cloak the truthful data, as for example in providing absolutely no access to any of the original negatives or film transparencies of these Apollo missions. At this point I'm not even suggesting upon obtaining an actual image frame, but merely of the leader and/or trail which couldn't possibly have betrayed and/or impacted upon one of those infamous images, of which there are 10's of thousands of said frames to select from, of which the public has viewed copies and/or prints from less than 1%, leaving 99% of those available frames (stills and movie film) nonutilized, perhaps because those weren't all that great to look at, though of what the image contains is rather insignificant as for otherwise determining radiation, of which just about any portion of film, from an actual frame or of what's between or of the leader/trailer portions would have done just fine and dandy. Though sadly, at this late time, there'd be no way of identifying the film as for being actual Apollo related, unless those were of viable lunar landscape images included. As for obtaining a trailer/leader portion of processed film would simply be unreliable and entirely meaningless since there'd be no certainty of it actually being what it is. Using an electron microscope, or even a sufficiently good digital scan of a section of even a film leader and/or trailer could have revealed the exact dosages of radiation exposure, down to the individual millirad or millirem level, as even a single millirad worth of recorded dosage could have been detected, though this would have taken 100+ millirad in order to have become observed to the human eye, of which all such Apollo mission film should have received at least several rads/rems if not hundreds. Human cells will for the most part recover from such TBI dosages, though film offers a one-way recording of the radiation accumulation, with or without ever being exposed to taking pictures. Of course at this point there's no simple and/or definitive method of identifying a primary radiation impact from that of a secondary, although the electron microscope could help to determined the various wavelength differences affecting those film emulsion crystals. Film crystals being mostly analog, but also somewhat digital in that every individual crystal or photon bucket can be affected to a differing degree, as there are far more of those emulsion crystals (photon buckets) per square mm than our finest CCD technology of even today, thus a great deal of information has always been available, far exceeding the optical lens resolution, including the detection of mostly near UV starlight upon those crystals. But oddly all access has been avoided for the rather obvious reasons, of reasons that must include the fact of such imaging wasn't necessarily accomplished on the lunar surface. This doesn't represent that our Apollo missions didn't for a time exit the Van Allen zone of death, possibly even to orbit the moon and of robotically deploying any number of experiments, as even a lunar orbit would have been quite risky business and of itself somewhat TBI worthy, although nowhere as bad off as for the actual solar and cosmic irradiated surface. Since there's supposedly been absolutely nothing for NASA or as for those worshiping of Apollo folks to fear nor lose, absolutely no possible damage to an original frame of their precious film, the only remaining fact of the matter becomes rather too obvious. Not that there's plenty of image contents worth arguing about, like the 50+% reflective index that's clearly observed within so may of the images, and for the rather odd lack of sufficient meteorites and various impact shards strewn about the lunar morgue, of a fully exposed surface which should have been at least as covered by such debris as Mars is, if not a whole lot more so. Actually, the ongoing numbers of micro meteorites impacting the lunar surface at 5+km/s should have been at least one per m2/day, although one per m2/hour shouldn't have been unexpected, and of any suitable lander constructed as for fending off such an influx. We now realize that the lander was anything but sufficiently constructed as to fend off much more than clumping moon dirt, among many other deficiencies which included radiation abatement that obviously wasn't worth squat, except for avoiding a UV class sun burn. Jay Windley wrote: "It is simply not necessary to follow all lines of investigation to some absolute standard of completeness in order to draw reliable conclusions." and "The search for truth is not a game in which evidence is doled out according to some strategy. It is based on full and accurate disclosure of the facts for examination." Jay Windley's first quote is quite true to life, although his second quote is surely from another planet besides Earth, perhaps from another dimension to boot. I guess I'm still the village idiot that's thinking way outside the box, as for our going back to the moon (if ever) may have to be for robots, not for mankind. At least not until we have obtained a sufficiently astronaut pilot documented and thus working lander of sufficient shielding as for radiation as well as for fending off all those pesky micro meteorites. LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator plus Counter Mass and new ISS) or GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express), plus there's lots of other related stuff, with more on the way (incorrect math, poor grammar and my dyslexic syntax to boot); http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-basalt.htm Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized. | Dan Hanson | Policy | 25 | January 26th 04 07:42 PM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |