Terraforming the moon underground:

On Mar 5, 1:59*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









This is yet another “I told you so”.

It’s certainly heating up, as one by one we get to play dodge
asteroid. *Almost daily an undiscovered asteroid sneaks past our
radars as it passes inside of our moon’s orbit, and it’ll be those of
retrograde added velocity that’ll impose the greatest threat.

2013 EC as yet another 16 meter killer asteroid that could have been
headed directly for us. *For all we know, as the Sirius Oort cloud
closes in, we’re in for a gauntlet of even bigger surprises unless
observations pick up and our radars are never turned off.

Too bad our spendy JWST can’t be counted on, because the Sirius Oort
cloud that has lots to offer is going to keep us wondering, what’s
next.

At least once we’ve tunneled ourselves deep into our moon, we’ll be
safe from all but the most planet killer asteroids or planetoids
headed our way via Sirius.

Considering all the huge crators wee can see on the Moon, it may not
be the best place to avoid asteroids!

Double-A

Its fully fused and paramagnetic basalt of roughly 3.5 g/cm3 density,
offers an ideal asteroid shield, as long as your TBM is tunneling
1000+ meters under that bedrock surface. It would take a typical 10
km diameter asteroid to penetrate 1 km, although a mostly iron
asteroid could produce a 5 km deep pocket, and a retrograde encounter
could possibly get half again or deeper.

On Mar 5, 1:59*pm, Double-A wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









This is yet another “I told you so”.

It’s certainly heating up, as one by one we get to play dodge
asteroid. *Almost daily an undiscovered asteroid sneaks past our
radars as it passes inside of our moon’s orbit, and it’ll be those of
retrograde added velocity that’ll impose the greatest threat.

2013 EC as yet another 16 meter killer asteroid that could have been
headed directly for us. *For all we know, as the Sirius Oort cloud
closes in, we’re in for a gauntlet of even bigger surprises unless
observations pick up and our radars are never turned off.

Too bad our spendy JWST can’t be counted on, because the Sirius Oort
cloud that has lots to offer is going to keep us wondering, what’s
next.

At least once we’ve tunneled ourselves deep into our moon, we’ll be
safe from all but the most planet killer asteroids or planetoids
headed our way via Sirius.

Considering all the huge crators wee can see on the Moon, it may not
be the best place to avoid asteroids!

Double-A

Actually its fully fused and paramagnetic basalt of roughly 3.5 g/cm3
density is what offers an ideal asteroid shield, as long as your TBM
is tunneling 1000+ meters under that tough bedrock surface. It would
take a typical 10 km diameter asteroid to penetrate 1 km, although a
mostly iron and nickel asteroid that could produce a 5 km deep pocket,
and a retrograde encounter could possibly get half again or possibly
deeper.

On Mar 4, 9:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
This is yet another “I told you so”.

It’s certainly heating up, as one by one we get to play dodge
asteroid. *Almost daily an undiscovered asteroid sneaks past our
radars as it passes inside of our moon’s orbit, and it’ll be those of
retrograde added velocity that’ll impose the greatest threat.

2013 EC as yet another 16 meter killer asteroid that could have been
headed directly for us. *For all we know, as the Sirius Oort cloud
closes in, we’re in for a gauntlet of even bigger surprises unless
observations pick up and our radars are never turned off.

Too bad our spendy JWST can’t be counted on, because the Sirius Oort
cloud that has lots to offer is going to keep us wondering, what’s
next.

At least once we’ve tunneled ourselves deep into our moon, we’ll be
safe from all but the most planet killer asteroids or planetoids
headed our way via Sirius.

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:







It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

We could be a whole lot safer if TBMs had established those tunnels
deep into our moon. At least if we knew of a monster asteroid having
a good chance of nailing Earth, whereas a few lucky humans could be
safely accommodated within our moon, where the odds of surviving could
be a thousandfold better off than sitting it out here on Earth.

On Mar 6, 3:16*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 4, 9:36*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









This is yet another “I told you so”.

It’s certainly heating up, as one by one we get to play dodge
asteroid. *Almost daily an undiscovered asteroid sneaks past our
radars as it passes inside of our moon’s orbit, and it’ll be those of
retrograde added velocity that’ll impose the greatest threat.

2013 EC as yet another 16 meter killer asteroid that could have been
headed directly for us. *For all we know, as the Sirius Oort cloud
closes in, we’re in for a gauntlet of even bigger surprises unless
observations pick up and our radars are never turned off.

Too bad our spendy JWST can’t be counted on, because the Sirius Oort
cloud that has lots to offer is going to keep us wondering, what’s
next.

At least once we’ve tunneled ourselves deep into our moon, we’ll be
safe from all but the most planet killer asteroids or planetoids
headed our way via Sirius.

On Feb 18, 5:56*am, Brad Guth wrote:

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 100 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions) is
getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas our moon is supposedly only
getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an 8th as much).

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting is being ignored by those of authority that do not want
outsiders having a public say about anything. *So, once again, it
really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied technology and
expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to be topic/author
stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/newsgroup
authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method can not be applied on such a geodynamically active planet
like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more primordial core
energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2 as contributing way more
geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer, although
older and cooler planets or any number of their moons (except for Io
that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be somewhat similar to terraforming
the cozy interior of our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior...

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 tonnes) worth of lose surface
basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years worth of
accumulated deposits, as remaining crystal dry on the naked surface of
our physically dark moon (not including the other good third portion
as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth) is a direct result of
the thousands of significant impacts, and especially as a result of
whatever created its South polar crater of 2500 km diameter, that
which all by itself should have contributed a minimum of 3e17 m3 or
possibly a maximum contribution of 1e18 m3 if including the planet
sized impactor contributions. *Given the limited surface area of the
moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t exactly allow all that much surface
area for accommodating such volume of lose crater made fallout, and
perhaps due to much of its own basalt metallicity making its density
worth on average 3.5 tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated
carbon buckyballs. *In that kind of hard vacuum, there really
shouldn’t be all that much porosity to any of its solidified basalt or
carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin as of 11,712
years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo wizards?

We could be a whole lot safer if TBMs had established those tunnels
deep into our moon. *At least if we knew of a monster asteroid having
a good chance of nailing Earth, whereas a few lucky humans could be
safely accommodated within our moon, where the odds of surviving could
be a thousandfold better off than sitting it out here on Earth.

Digging with TBMs going hog-wild, as to excavating our moon, as such
should have been started as of decades ago. Instead we still got
nothing of any direct benefit out of our NASA/Apollo era, other than
mutually perpetrated cold-war grief and loads of global inflation that
only makes oligarchs happy campers.

It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 50 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions, most of
which being underwater) is getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas
our moon is supposedly only getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an
8th as much), not to mention the substantial ongoing leakage or
upwelling loss of helium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting minerals is being ignored by those of authority that
simply do not want outsiders having a public say about anything. So,
once again, it really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied
technology and expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to
be topic/author stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/
newsgroup authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. Unfortunately
this method of using TBMs can not be applied on such a geodynamically
active planet like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more
primordial core energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2, contributing way
more geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer,
although older and cooler planets or especially any number of their
moons (except for Io that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be offering
somewhat similar opportunities as to terraforming the cozy interior of
our moon.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...olcanism_5.pdf

http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

(math correction) The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 kg) worth of
lose surface basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years
worth of accumulated deposits could push that upwards of 7.35e18 kg (.
01% of the lunar mass), as remaining lose and crystal dry on the naked
surface of our physically dark moon (not including the other good
third portion as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth), is a
direct result of the thousands of significant impacts, and especially
as a direct result of whatever created its South polar crater of 2500
km diameter, that which all by itself should have contributed a
minimum of 3e17 m3 or possibly a maximum all-inclusive contribution of
1e18 m3 if we included the planet sized impactor contributions. Given
the limited surface area of the moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t
exactly allow all that much surface area for accommodating such volume
of lose crater made shards and dust fallout, and perhaps due to much
of its own basalt metallicity making its density worth on average 3.5
tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated carbon buckyballs,
whereas in that kind of hard vacuum there really shouldn’t be all that
much if any porosity to its solidified basalt or carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin and seasonal
tilt as of 11,712 years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo era of off-world geology wizards?

On Mar 13, 11:31*am, Brad Guth wrote:
It's probably close to averaging a cozy 0 F (255 K) at no greater than
10 meters deep, and it shouldn't have any problems reaching 70 F (day
or night) at 50 km deep or possibly as shallow as 10 km (depending on
the core energy). *The R-factor of lunar regolith (lose basalt rock
and loads of crystal dry dust that’s at minimum 10 meters deep) is
none too shabby, and otherwise the geothermal conductance and/or heat
transfer coefficient (aka geothermal gradient) of its paramagnetic
basalt crust of 3.5 g/cm3 density shouldn't be significantly any
different than here on Earth, except that our terrestrial basalt isn't
nearly as paramagnetic or much less offering carbonado, and the core
heat of Earth being 7000+ K as opposed to only 1000 K of our moon.
Supposedly there is only a wee little bit of lunar granite to deal
with, but the samples thus far are inconsistent in their composition.

A new interpretation is that all-inclusively the geothermal outflux of
Earth (including geothermal vents and volcanic contributions, most of
which being underwater) is getting rid of roughly 128 mw/m2, whereas
our moon is supposedly only getting rid of as little as 16 mw/m2 (an
8th as much), not to mention the substantial ongoing leakage or
upwelling loss of helium.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
*“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with
respect to increasing depth in the Earth's interior.”

The "Igneous Petrology" of our moon and Venus should each be unique
and considerably different than Earth.

“The composition of igneous rocks and minerals can be determined via a
variety of methods of varying ease, cost, and complexity. The simplest
method is observation of hand samples with the naked eye and/or with a
hand lens. This can be used to gauge the general mineralogical
composition of the rock, which gives an insight into the composition.”

Unfortunately, the rocks returned from our moon were entirely similar
to those of terrestrial rocks. *Of course there’s all sorts of actual
paramagnetic basalt moon rock to be found on Earth, because there
should be at least a thousand teratonnes of it, whereas naturally most
of which ended up in oceans and otherwise as having meteor and obvious
melt indications that are entirely quite different than local volcanic
spewed basalts.

“A more precise but still relatively inexpensive way to identify
minerals (and thereby the bulk chemical composition of the rock) with
a petrographic microscope. These microscopes have polarizing plates,
filters, and a conoscopic lens that allow the user to measure a large
number of crystallographic properties.”

Contributor “Wretch Fossil” actually has a very good “petrographic
microscope” and multiple resources plus talent of interpreting such to
go along with it. *Sadly this technology and its expertise of
interpreting minerals is being ignored by those of authority that
simply do not want outsiders having a public say about anything. *So,
once again, it really doesn’t matter whatever level of modern applied
technology and expertise we have to offer, because it’s only going to
be topic/author stalked and systematically trashed by those of Usenet/
newsgroup authority that have multiple mainstream issues at risk.

TBMs cutting their tunnels into the interior of our moon should prove
both interesting and rewarding in terms of extracting rare and
valuable elements, not to mention creating the very cozy and safe
habitat potential that’s opened up for multiple uses. *Unfortunately
this method of using TBMs can not be applied on such a geodynamically
active planet like Venus that has such a thin crust and way more
primordial core energy outflux of perhaps 20.5 w/m2, contributing way
more geothermal energy than any other planet or moon has to offer,
although older and cooler planets or especially any number of their
moons (except for Io that’s averaging 2 w/m2) should be offering
somewhat similar opportunities as to terraforming the cozy interior of
our moon.
*http://www.mps.mpg.de/solar-system-s...etary_interior....

*http://commercialspace.pbworks.com/f/Public+ILN.pdf

*(math correction) The likely two thirds (6.6e17~6.6e18 kg) worth of
lose surface basalt rock and dust including whatever 4+ billion years
worth of accumulated deposits could push that upwards of 7.35e18 kg (.
01% of the lunar mass), as remaining lose and crystal dry on the naked
surface of our physically dark moon (not including the other good
third portion as having been dislodged and deposited on Earth), is a
direct result of the thousands of significant impacts, and especially
as a direct result of whatever created its South polar crater of 2500
km diameter, that which all by itself should have contributed a
minimum of 3e17 m3 or possibly a maximum all-inclusive contribution of
1e18 m3 if we included the planet sized impactor contributions. *Given
the limited surface area of the moon as being 3.8e13 m2 doesn’t
exactly allow all that much surface area for accommodating such volume
of lose crater made shards and dust fallout, and perhaps due to much
of its own basalt metallicity making its density worth on average 3.5
tonnes/m3 unless offset by loads of accumulated carbon buckyballs,
whereas in that kind of hard vacuum there really shouldn’t be all that
much if any porosity to its solidified basalt or carbonado.

Liquefied basalt as returning fallout from such truly horrific impacts
that should have extensively solidified and possibly fused upon
contact with the relatively cool basalt surface, as such should have
been quite obvious and highly distinctive if such exposed lunar
bedrock samples had been return to Earth. *Sadly, no such samples or
even unique meteorites ever materialized from our NASA/Apollo era,
that found our naked moon as instead so unusually reflective and UV, X-
ray and gamma inert as well as hardly the least bit dusty, and what
little crystal dry dust there was seemed to offer terrific surface
tension and clumping for their footing and traction like no place
else.

Even taking the utmost conservative swag-estimate of 3.8e16 m3 worth
of lose rock, debris and accumulated dust, is still suggesting an
average surface depth of one km, which of course our Apollo era found
no such indications, as though that moon is relatively new to us. *Of
course, if that moon had created our Arctic ocean basin and seasonal
tilt as of 11,712 years ago, would actually explain quite a bit.

How’s that for a worthy topic of terraforming the innards of our naked
moon that’s practically dust free and mostly solid as any rock
according to our Apollo era of off-world geology wizards?

Underground terraforming, by using modules assembled into TBMs.

Once deployed and attended to by mostly other robotics, these bedrock
cutting and excavating monsters can provide safe lunar habitats for us.

Underground terraforming our moon could be a whole lot easier that
some would suggest. Of course getting really big machinery safely
deployed and assembled on that physically dark and naked surface is
going to require actual fly-by-rocket landers that are fuel efficient
and failsafe reliable, just like those Apollo era landers that always
worked like a charm right out of the box, so to speak.

Physical properties of fused magmas
http://courses.washington.edu/ess439...3%20slides.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...47..372B

http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/supplement9.html

Using 230 K as the average lunar surface temperature, and perhaps
with an outflux of 17 mw/m2 allowing 233 K at one meter under that
highly insulative surface dust, then based upon encountering solid/
fused bedrock of mostly paramagnetic basalt worth 3.5 g/cm3 density,
as such is still going to remain difficult to model without a whole
lot better estimate of the core size and knowing of its temperature.

There’s a high probability that the lunar core is somewhat more
substantial, as having been a little better insulated by the inverse
density below the fused basalt crust that’s covered with such a highly
insulative layer of crystal dry dust, along with passing ionized
sodium, helium and a few other unavoidably escaping gas particles.
Although potentially offset from center by as much as 25% radius
(434.5 km) in order to compensate for the 40% thicker farside crust,
and thereby giving us a crust differential of 4e17 m3 representing
1.05e21 kg when using the paramagnetic basalt density of 3.5e3 kg/m3
with a crust of 40 km nearside along with a 56 km farside thickness.

If the core is worth 435 km radius and given a density of 7e3 kg/m3 =
2.4e21 kg, and when 25% center offset provides a volumetric mascon
compensation of 2.4e21 kg as shifted toward Earth, which is more than
sufficient ballast to offset the farside crust imbalance of 1.05e21
kg. At least this estimate offers a reasonable option.

Of course this is all basic geometric math and rough estimates of what
could actually be the case of our moon as having an inverse density,
as nicely shielded by its thick and nicely fused paramagnetic basalt
crust.. Below that extremely tough crust could be a somewhat porous
composite form of basalt and other weird geology, as well as trapped
mineral brines, assortments of crystal growth and various outgassing
that should have become geode pockets as otherwise nicely shielded
from the hard vacuum of space. In other words, a real mix of heavy
and light elements creating a complex interior matrix that could be
rather easily exploited by the use of TBMs.

As it stands, we really have not a clue as to the interior of our
moon, especially when geology science missions such as the JAXA/ISAS
Lunar-A and similar UK/ESA surface penetrator efforts for obtaining
good lunar seismology mapping, had each been denied or otherwise
foiled by those of our NASA/Apollo era. Apparently lunar seismology
shall remain as another one of those taboo/nondisclosure issues for
decades to come.

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/planetary/...enetrators.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar-A

The actual depth of lose dust and secondary shards from impacts that
created thousands of significant craters, and especially via the
enormous south pole crater of 2500 km diameter, by rights should have
easily covered the moon with a km of lose material. Apparently our
NASA/Apollo missions never set any foot on that kind of lose soil,
whereas instead they had only encountered terrific surface tension and
thereby no footing problems or any lack of traction, as though the
moon was practically dust free, and of what little dust they had was
capable of clumping far better than any of our best geology
expectations.

On Mar 14, 6:24*am, Brad Guth wrote:
Underground terraforming our moon could be a whole lot easier that
some would suggest. *Of course getting really big machinery safely
deployed and assembled on that physically dark and naked surface is
going to require actual fly-by-rocket landers that are fuel efficient
and failsafe reliable, just like those Apollo era landers that always
worked like a charm right out of the box, so to speak.

Physical properties of fused magmas
*http://courses.washington.edu/ess439...e%203%20slides....

*http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...47..372B

*http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/supplement9.html

*Using 230 K as the average lunar surface temperature, and perhaps
with an outflux of 17 mw/m2 allowing 233 *K at one meter under that
highly insulative surface dust, then based upon encountering solid/
fused bedrock of mostly paramagnetic basalt worth 3.5 g/cm3 density,
as such is still going to remain difficult to model without a whole
lot better estimate of the core size and knowing of its temperature.

There’s a high probability that the lunar core is somewhat more
substantial, as having been a little better insulated by the inverse
density below the fused basalt crust that’s covered with such a highly
insulative layer of crystal dry dust, along with passing ionized
sodium, helium and a few other unavoidably escaping gas particles.
Although potentially offset from center by as much as 25% radius
(434.5 km) in order to compensate for the 40% thicker farside crust,
and thereby giving us a crust differential of 4e17 m3 representing
1.05e21 kg when using the paramagnetic basalt density of 3.5e3 kg/m3
with a crust of 40 km nearside along with a 56 km farside thickness.

If the core is worth 435 km radius and given a density of 7e3 kg/m3 =
2.4e21 kg, and when 25% center offset *provides a volumetric mascon
compensation of 2.4e21 kg as shifted toward Earth, which is more than
sufficient ballast to offset the farside crust imbalance of 1.05e21
kg. *At least this estimate offers a reasonable option.

Of course this is all basic geometric math and rough estimates of what
could actually be the case of our moon as having an inverse density,
as nicely shielded by its thick and nicely fused paramagnetic basalt
crust.. *Below that extremely tough crust could be a somewhat porous
composite form of basalt and other weird geology, as well as trapped
mineral brines, assortments of crystal growth and various outgassing
that should have become geode pockets as otherwise nicely shielded
from the hard vacuum of space. *In other words, a real mix of heavy
and light elements creating a complex interior matrix that could be
rather easily exploited by the use of TBMs.

As it stands, we really have not a clue as to the interior of our
moon, especially when geology science missions such as the JAXA/ISAS
Lunar-A and similar UK/ESA *surface penetrator efforts for obtaining
good lunar seismology mapping, had each been denied or otherwise
foiled by those of our NASA/Apollo era. *Apparently lunar seismology
shall remain as another one of those taboo/nondisclosure issues for
decades to come.

*http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf

*http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/planetary/...enetrators.php

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar-A

*The actual depth of lose dust and secondary shards from impacts that
created thousands of significant craters, and especially via the
enormous south pole crater of 2500 km diameter, by rights should have
easily covered the moon with a km of lose material. *Apparently our
NASA/Apollo missions never set any foot on that kind of lose soil,
whereas instead they had only encountered terrific surface tension and
thereby no footing problems or any lack of traction, as though the
moon was practically dust free, and of what little dust they had was
capable of clumping far better than any of our best geology
expectations.

As for Goldilocks ever surviving on the moon or the hellish surface of
Venus, this notion has never been any part of my intentions or any
such suggestions for others to consider, because only advanced
intelligent types could ever manage to accomplish this with ease. My
thoughts were always about the exploitation potential and
accomplishing this via mostly robotics, but otherwise using a well
insulated composite rigid airship that could if need be easily
accommodate a crew of more than a thousand, doesn’t seem all that
technically insurmountable. The fact that others may have already
been there and doing their own exploitations, is just further evidence
and proof of why we should be doing the same.

A step in the right direction would be to establish our OASIS/Gateway
of Venus L2, as our cool go-between depot for dealing with the task of
exploiting Venus. Of course the same analogy applies for establishing
our Earth-moon L1 OASIS/outpost and ultimate Gateway, that could have
been easily created decades ago for roughly 10% of what those nearly
worthless Apollo missions set us back.

For an even better off-world experience, a chemical/fluid and nuclear
powered airship still seems like a perfectly good idea. Of course air
conditioning the main cabin areas of this enormous flying machine is
going to take more than a few window mounted air conditioners from
WalMart, and not that keeping the hydrogen gas regulated as hot as
possible isn’t a perfectly good idea for increased buoyancy.

On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, Double-A wrote:
"The cooling elements are sandwiches of a normal metal, a 1-nanometer-
thick insulating layer, and a superconducting metal. When a voltage is
applied, the hottest electrons "tunnel" from the normal metal through
the insulator to the superconductor. The temperature in the normal
metal drops dramatically and drains electronic and vibrational energy
from the object being cooled."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0308183821.htm

Maxwell's Demon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

Double-A

Now that's getting our moneys worth out of our public NIST
investment. Too bad our spendy NIF can’t seem to manage the same
benefits, outside of improved fusion weapons. Might as well sequester
NIF in order to keep our NIST going strong.

Besides all sorts of new and improved terrestrial applications, this
new and improved quantum refrigeration as efficient heat transferring
without moving parts or using freons should do wonders for cooling
applications on Venus, as well as for managing temperatures within the
GuthVenus composite rigid airship.

This might eventually replace using helium, which is often not getting
recycled enough as is, and natural resources of helium are greatly
depleted or simply vented off as an unavoidable composite of our
hydrocarbons and natural gas exploitations and their mass consumption.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0308183821.htm

"It's one of the most flabbergasting results I've seen," project
leader Joel Ullom says. "We used quantum mechanics in a nanostructure
to cool a block of copper. The copper is about a million times heavier
than the refrigerating elements. This is a rare example of a nano- or
microelectromechanical machine that can manipulate the macroscopic
world."

“The technology may offer a compact, convenient means of chilling
advanced sensors below standard cryogenic temperatures -- 300
milliKelvin (mK), typically achieved by use of liquid helium -- to
enhance their performance in quantum information systems, telescope
cameras, and searches for mysterious dark matter and dark energy.
As described in Applied Physics Letters, the NIST refrigerator's
cooling elements, consisting of 48 tiny sandwiches of specific
materials, chilled a plate of copper, 2.5 centimeters on a side and 3
millimeters thick, from 290 mK to 256 mK. The cooling process took
about 18 hours. NIST researchers expect that minor improvements will
enable faster and further cooling to about 100 mK.”

This is the sort of positive/constructive R&D advancements that the
public should be quite willing to pay for. Perhaps sequestering of
public funding is going to turn out as a very good way of bringing
forth any number of technology improvements, that perhaps our NIF,
DARPA and DOE should have gotten promoted as of a decade ago, such as
promoting thorium fueled reactors that could deliver failsafe clean
energy at not 10% the ongoing all-inclusive cost of conventional
nuclear fueled reactors, thereby making longer range electric cars,
trucks and buses into a win-win kind of affordable clean
transportation alternative, along with always improved batteries that
such application would promote. In fact, all sorts of energy
demanding products and services should become a done deal, benefiting
everyone from oligarchs on down to those living on the street.

For all we know, the innards of our moon is extensively porous and/or
conceivably hiding those geode pockets and even layers of mineral
brines, and thus on average offering an inverse density all the way
down to its substantially offset core.

Underground terraforming our moon could be a whole lot easier that
some would of our resident naysayers suggest. Of course getting
really big machinery safely deployed and assembled on that physically
dark and naked surface is going to require actual fly-by-rocket
landers that are fuel efficient and failsafe reliable, just like those
Apollo era landers that always worked like a charm right out of the
box, so to speak.

Physical properties of fused magmas
http://courses.washington.edu/ess439...3%20slides.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...47..372B

http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/supplement9.html

Using 230 K as the average lunar surface temperature, and perhaps
with an outflux of 17 mw/m2 allowing 233 K at one meter under that
highly insulative surface dust, then based upon encountering solid/
fused bedrock of mostly paramagnetic basalt worth 3.5 g/cm3 density,
as such is still going to remain difficult to model without a whole
lot better estimate of the core size and knowing of its temperature.

There’s a high probability that the lunar core is somewhat more
substantial, as having been a little better insulated by the inverse
density below the fused basalt crust that’s covered with such a thick
and highly insulative layer of crystal dry dust, along with passing
ionized sodium, helium and a few other unavoidably escaping gas
particles. Although potentially offset from center by as much as 25%
radius (434.5 km) in order to compensate for the 40% thicker farside
crust, and thereby giving us a crust differential of 4e17 m3
representing 1.05e21 kg when using the paramagnetic basalt density of
3.5e3 kg/m3 with a crust of 40 km nearside along with a 56 km farside
thickness.

If the core is worth 435 km radius and given a density of 7e3 kg/m3 =
2.4e21 kg, and when 25% center offset provides a volumetric mascon
compensation of 2.4e21 kg as shifted toward Earth, which is more than
sufficient ballast to offset the farside crust imbalance of 1.05e21
kg. At least this estimate offers a reasonable option.

Of course this is all basic geometric math and rough estimates of what
could actually be the case of our moon as having an inverse density,
as nicely shielded by its thick and nicely fused paramagnetic basalt
crust.. Below that extremely tough crust could be a somewhat porous
composite form of basalt and other weird geology, as well as trapped
mineral brines, assortments of crystal growth and various outgassing
that should have become geode pockets as otherwise nicely shielded
from the hard vacuum of space. In other words, a real mix of heavy
and light elements creating a complex interior matrix that could be
rather easily exploited by the use of TBMs.

As it stands, we really have not a clue as to the interior of our
moon, especially when geology science missions such as the JAXA/ISAS
Lunar-A and similar UK/ESA surface penetrator efforts for obtaining
good lunar seismology mapping, had each been denied or otherwise
foiled by those of our NASA/Apollo era. Apparently lunar seismology
shall remain as another one of those taboo/nondisclosure issues for
decades to come.

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/planetary/...enetrators.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar-A

The actual depth of lose dust and secondary shards from impacts that
created thousands of significant craters, and especially via the
enormous south pole crater of 2500 km diameter, by rights should have
easily covered the moon with a km of lose material. Apparently our
NASA/Apollo missions never set any fly-by-rocket lander or actual foot
on that kind of lose soil, whereas instead they had only encountered
terrific surface clumping tension and thereby no footing problems or
any lack of rover traction, as though the moon was practically dust
free, and of what little dust they had was always capable of clumping
far better than any of our best geology expectations could have
imagined.

Basically there’s still a lot to learn about our paramagnetic basalt
and somewhat carbonado encrusted moon, not that some diamagnetic
elements like gold shouldn’t coexist along with the paramagnetics of
platinum, thorium, uranium, and ferromagnetic cobalt as well as many
other valuable elements that are often referred to as rare earths
primarily because of their market value.


On Mar 14, 1:49*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:24*am, Brad Guth wrote:


Underground terraforming our moon could be a whole lot easier that
some would suggest. *Of course getting really big machinery safely
deployed and assembled on that physically dark and naked surface is
going to require actual fly-by-rocket landers that are fuel efficient
and failsafe reliable, just like those Apollo era landers that always
worked like a charm right out of the box, so to speak.

Physical properties of fused magmas
*http://courses.washington.edu/ess439...e%203%20slides...

*http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...47..372B

*http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/supplement9.html

*Using 230 K as the average lunar surface temperature, and perhaps
with an outflux of 17 mw/m2 allowing 233 *K at one meter under that
highly insulative surface dust, then based upon encountering solid/
fused bedrock of mostly paramagnetic basalt worth 3.5 g/cm3 density,
as such is still going to remain difficult to model without a whole
lot better estimate of the core size and knowing of its temperature.

There’s a high probability that the lunar core is somewhat more
substantial, as having been a little better insulated by the inverse
density below the fused basalt crust that’s covered with such a highly
insulative layer of crystal dry dust, along with passing ionized
sodium, helium and a few other unavoidably escaping gas particles.
Although potentially offset from center by as much as 25% radius
(434.5 km) in order to compensate for the 40% thicker farside crust,
and thereby giving us a crust differential of 4e17 m3 representing
1.05e21 kg when using the paramagnetic basalt density of 3.5e3 kg/m3
with a crust of 40 km nearside along with a 56 km farside thickness.

If the core is worth 435 km radius and given a density of 7e3 kg/m3 =
2.4e21 kg, and when 25% center offset *provides a volumetric mascon
compensation of 2.4e21 kg as shifted toward Earth, which is more than
sufficient ballast to offset the farside crust imbalance of 1.05e21
kg. *At least this estimate offers a reasonable option.

Of course this is all basic geometric math and rough estimates of what
could actually be the case of our moon as having an inverse density,
as nicely shielded by its thick and nicely fused paramagnetic basalt
crust.. *Below that extremely tough crust could be a somewhat porous
composite form of basalt and other weird geology, as well as trapped
mineral brines, assortments of crystal growth and various outgassing
that should have become geode pockets as otherwise nicely shielded
from the hard vacuum of space. *In other words, a real mix of heavy
and light elements creating a complex interior matrix that could be
rather easily exploited by the use of TBMs.

As it stands, we really have not a clue as to the interior of our
moon, especially when geology science missions such as the JAXA/ISAS
Lunar-A and similar UK/ESA *surface penetrator efforts for obtaining
good lunar seismology mapping, had each been denied or otherwise
foiled by those of our NASA/Apollo era. *Apparently lunar seismology
shall remain as another one of those taboo/nondisclosure issues for
decades to come.

*http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/general/news/UKLPC/UKLPC.pdf

*http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/planetary/...enetrators.php

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar-A

*The actual depth of lose dust and secondary shards from impacts that
created thousands of significant craters, and especially via the
enormous south pole crater of 2500 km diameter, by rights should have
easily covered the moon with a km of lose material. *Apparently our
NASA/Apollo missions never set any foot on that kind of lose soil,
whereas instead they had only encountered terrific surface tension and
thereby no footing problems or any lack of traction, as though the
moon was practically dust free, and of what little dust they had was
capable of clumping far better than any of our best geology
expectations.

As for Goldilocks ever surviving on the moon or the hellish surface of
Venus, this notion has never been any part of my intentions or any
such suggestions for others to consider, because only advanced
intelligent types could ever manage to accomplish this with ease. *My
thoughts were always about the exploitation potential and
accomplishing this via mostly robotics, but otherwise using a well
insulated composite rigid airship that could if need be easily
accommodate a crew of more than a thousand, doesn’t seem all that
technically insurmountable. *The fact that others may have already
been there and doing their own exploitations, is just further evidence
and proof of why we should be doing the same.

A step in the right direction would be to establish our OASIS/Gateway
of Venus L2, as our cool go-between depot for dealing with the task of
exploiting Venus. *Of course the same analogy applies for establishing
our Earth-moon L1 OASIS/outpost and ultimate Gateway, that could have
been easily created decades ago for roughly 10% of what those nearly
worthless Apollo missions set us back.

For an even better off-world experience, a chemical/fluid and nuclear
powered airship still seems like a perfectly good idea. *Of course air
conditioning the main cabin areas of this enormous flying machine is
going to take more than a few window mounted air conditioners from
WalMart, and not that keeping the hydrogen gas regulated as hot as
possible isn’t a perfectly good idea for increased buoyancy.

On Mar 13, 1:19 pm, Double-A wrote:

"The cooling elements are sandwiches of a normal metal, a 1-nanometer-
thick insulating layer, and a superconducting metal. When a voltage is
applied, the hottest electrons "tunnel" from the normal metal through
the insulator to the superconductor. The temperature in the normal
metal drops dramatically and drains electronic and vibrational energy
from the object being cooled."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0308183821.htm

Maxwell's Demon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

Double-A

Now that's getting our moneys worth out of our public NIST
investment. *Too bad our spendy NIF can’t seem to manage the same
benefits, outside of improved fusion weapons. *Might as well sequester
NIF in order to keep our NIST going strong.

Besides all sorts of new and improved terrestrial applications, this
new and improved quantum refrigeration as efficient heat transferring
without moving parts or using freons should do wonders for cooling
applications on Venus, as well as for managing temperatures within the
GuthVenus composite rigid airship.

This might eventually replace using helium, which is often not getting
recycled enough as is, and natural resources of helium are greatly
depleted or simply vented off as an unavoidable composite of our
hydrocarbons and natural gas exploitations and their mass consumption.

*http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0308183821.htm

*"It's one of the most flabbergasting results I've seen," project
leader Joel Ullom says. "We used quantum mechanics in a nanostructure
to cool a block of copper. The copper is about a million times heavier
than the refrigerating elements. This is a rare example of a nano- or
microelectromechanical machine that can manipulate the macroscopic
world."

“The technology may offer a compact, convenient means of chilling
advanced sensors below standard cryogenic temperatures -- 300
milliKelvin (mK), typically achieved by use of liquid helium -- to
enhance their performance in quantum information systems, telescope
cameras, and searches for mysterious dark matter and dark energy.
As described in Applied Physics Letters, the NIST refrigerator's
cooling elements, consisting of 48 tiny sandwiches of specific
materials, chilled a plate of copper, 2.5 centimeters on a side and 3
millimeters thick, from 290 mK to 256 mK. The cooling process took
about 18 hours. NIST researchers expect that minor improvements will
enable faster and further cooling to about 100 mK.”

This is the sort of positive/constructive R&D advancements that the
public should be quite willing to pay for. *Perhaps sequestering of
public funding is going to turn out as a very good way of bringing
forth any number of technology improvements, that perhaps our NIF,
DARPA and DOE should have gotten promoted as of a decade ago, such as
promoting thorium fueled reactors that could deliver failsafe clean
energy at not 10% the ongoing all-inclusive cost of conventional
nuclear fueled reactors, thereby making longer range electric cars,
trucks and buses into a win-win kind of affordable clean
transportation alternative, along with always improved batteries that
such application would promote. *In fact, all sorts of energy
demanding products and services should become a done deal, benefiting
everyone from oligarchs on down to those living on the street.

Looks like the "Insane One" is giving Venus a rest ... he must have
located Waldo ...

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
For all we know, the innards of our moon is extensively porous and/or
conceivably hiding those geode pockets and even layers of mineral
brines, and thus on average offering an inverse density all the way
down to its substantially offset core.

*** The Moon does have crevices and cave like inner structures. They were
formed due to the uneven shrinking of the original Earthen materials the
Moon is composed of, because the Moon has a minimal metallic core and
therefore cooled rather quickly, creating these inner spaces. Rumor has it
the Aliens store their cheese there. ***

Underground terraforming our moon could be a whole lot easier that
some would of our resident naysayers suggest. Of course getting
really big machinery safely deployed and assembled on that physically
dark and naked surface is going to require actual fly-by-rocket
landers that are fuel efficient and failsafe reliable, just like those
Apollo era landers that always worked like a charm right out of the
box, so to speak.

*** Let's see, you lunatic, we made, what, 6 trips to the Moon and hauled
back maybe 800lbs of Moon rocks, all of them bearing a striking similarity
in their composition to similar rocks found here on Earth ... I and you, a
cretin of minimal intelligence but a vivid imagination, want to start mining
the Moon. Perhaps you can lay out for us just how you're going to get there
and live there and breathe there and not freeze to death there ... how about
taking a GuthBall (a dump) at 5degrees Kelvin on the "Dark Side of the Moon"
you loon. ***

Physical properties of fused magmas
http://courses.washington.edu/ess439...3%20slides.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...47..372B

http://astro.cas.cz/nuncius/supplement9.html

Using 230 K as the average lunar surface temperature, and perhaps
with an outflux of 17 mw/m2 allowing 233 K at one meter under that
highly insulative surface dust, then based upon encountering solid/
fused bedrock of mostly paramagnetic basalt worth 3.5 g/cm3 density,
as such is still going to remain difficult to model without a whole
lot better estimate of the core size and knowing of its temperature.

*** Average temperature of 230 K ??? you are insane, ain't cha. So, the
sunny side is cooking and the far side is deadly cold, but, hey, I forgot,
let's average it out to (manipulates slide rule) say 230 K. You are dumber
than dirt, Goth ***

snip the rest of GuthBall's fantasy world ...