Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM

(Brad Guth) wrote:

Eventually I'll learn of what the specific difference is between a
fully solar illuminated moon and that of earthshine induced secondary
radiation.

What does secondary radiation have to do with illumination, solar or
otherwise? It's an issue when talking about shielding from cosmic rays,
not walking on the lunar surface.

(Alan Anderson) wrote in message ...
(Brad Guth) wrote:

Eventually I'll learn of what the specific difference is between a
fully solar illuminated moon and that of earthshine induced secondary
radiation.

What does secondary radiation have to do with illumination, solar or
otherwise? It's an issue when talking about shielding from cosmic rays,
not walking on the lunar surface.

The only thing illumination has to do with lunar radiation, is for
that being the source of that illumination is obviously the primary
influx of the directed radiation that's striking the lunar surface, as
well as accounting for the sheets or layers of solar flak, all of
which are seriously loaded down with radioactive particles, especially
of those events during the last week of October 2003.

In other words, our sun is by far a seriously big cosmic source of
rays.

The non illuminated lunar surface is not only much darker but, a whole
lot less irradiated. The earthshine illuminated moon is only of a very
slight radiation factor, thus EVAs are not only radiation safer but
more than sufficiently illuminated.

The surface of the moon itself is essentially the shield, the mass
that's supposedly between yourself and of whatever is radiating your
entire body.

Obviously we have a wee bit of a problem with respect to walking on
the daylight lunar surface because, instead of our being shielded as
behind it, we're obviously standing in front of it. Worse yet, if
you're standing on that infamous clumping moon dirt, you're obviously
standing within the lunar substance itself, where down to -10 cm there
may be the absolute greatest degree of secondary radiation to being
had.

On top of all that, lunar soil and rock is supposedly of mostly
basalt, which is not only relatively dark in color (near black) but
far denser than aluminum and, thereby creating greater amounts of
secondary radiation in the form of hard X-Rays.

"Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking" is another topic I'm
interested in your feedback and/or questions.

All of this lunar interest is in regard to my Lunar Space Elevator
and/or GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express) depot, as a means to an end:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
| (Alan Anderson) wrote in message
...
|
| What does secondary radiation have to do with illumination, solar or
| otherwise? It's an issue when talking about shielding from cosmic rays,
| not walking on the lunar surface.

snip

| In other words, our sun is by far a seriously big cosmic source of
| rays.

No. High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against them.
The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably lower energy
and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are minimal.

| On top of all that, lunar soil and rock is supposedly of mostly
| basalt, which is not only relatively dark in color (near black) but
| far denser than aluminum and, thereby creating greater amounts of
| secondary radiation in the form of hard X-Rays.

Molecular weight, not bulk density, better determines a substance's ability
to generate secondary radiation.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

"Jay Windley" wrote in message ...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
| (Alan Anderson) wrote in message
...
|
| What does secondary radiation have to do with illumination, solar or
| otherwise? It's an issue when talking about shielding from cosmic rays,
| not walking on the lunar surface.

snip

| In other words, our sun is by far a seriously big cosmic source of
| rays.

No. High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against them.
The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably lower energy
and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are minimal.

| On top of all that, lunar soil and rock is supposedly of mostly
| basalt, which is not only relatively dark in color (near black) but
| far denser than aluminum and, thereby creating greater amounts of
| secondary radiation in the form of hard X-Rays.

Molecular weight, not bulk density, better determines a substance's ability
to generate secondary radiation.

Thanks ever so much for all your corrective feedback.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of mular radiation that
become hard X-Ray class.

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun"

Does that happen to include the likes of the last couple of weeks of
solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface, as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This is somewhat like getting a grasp upon the applied energy (thrust)
involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman )

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what you've just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm


Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com