Terraforming the moon underground:

Besides the mainstream naysay gauntlet against ever exploiting the
extremely nearby planet Venus for all it’s worth, it's as though there
is also something oddly mainstream taboo/forbidden or nondisclosure
associated with any notions of independently exploiting the likely
soft innards of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon. Go figure.

Once TBMs are situated and working sufficiently deep underground
(other than remote logistics issues that at first should be daunting),
what's the likely geological difference between our moon and Earth?

Inside the crust of our moon is probably not going to be all that much
different than tunneling inside of Earth’s granite and basalt,
especially once our TBMs get sufficiently into and below that
extremely tough paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust of 3.5+ g/cm3
that our NASA/Apollo era documented as offering a much lower density
as well as perfectly inert (not the least bit paramagnetic) and
otherwise mostly monochromatic as well as hardly the least bit dusty
on top, and there certainly wasn’t any problems with the failsafe
technology of their fly-by-rocket landers that can be manually flown
and easily scaled to suit. However, the greatly reduced gravity
should by rights yield a very soft or porous kind of innards, along
with offering gas formed geode pockets and possibly layers of mineral
brines (even a potential of hydrocarbons in addition to encountering a
great deal of fused crust sequestered helium), in that TBMs should
whiz right through at a fraction of the difficulty found in dealing
with the inner bedrock of Earth.

No doubt the resident redneck FUD-masters and their oligarchs in
charge of mainstream damage-control, by having to continually topic/
author stalk and otherwise sequester such independent notions about
exploiting our moon, are probably going to need many extra Depends(aka
adult diapers) in order to effectively deal with their usual damage-
control exploits of topic/author stalking and trashing of this topic.
Sorry about that.

Fortunately, we only have to be realistic in order to appreciate what
the soft innards of our moon should have to offer, not to mention my
other notions of creating the LSE-CM/ISS and of otherwise relocating
the orbit of our moon as to actively station-keeping it within Earth
L1. At least Stanley Kubrick would be so proud, not to mention most
every global domination villain on Earth, including our Paperclip
Nazis that supposedly got us safely to/from our moon.

Figuring that fewer than 10% access my topics and replies via Google
Groups or Groups+, makes my global Usenet/newsgroup audience worth at
least 44,560 per week.

Google Groups: Your 7-day activity
1 discussion started
3 discussions replies
24 direct replies to your messages
4456 views of your messages
30 views of your profile

Not sure if this reported activity is necessarily a good or bad thing,
but it seems to reflect that others are finding some of what I have to
offer as either worth their while or at least entertaining. Perhaps
not too many teachers or instructors would have nearly the same
audience to brag about, and especially those of my devoted FUD-masters
as having an audience of roughly zero once excluding others of their
own redneck kind that must always brown-nose their oligarch peers, or
else.


On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

I'm still being looked at, and my moon relocation proposal isn't the
topic distraction from exploiting our moon that one might think. If
we can manage to get TBMs working the innards of our moon, there's a
good chance that relocation of our moon isn't far behind.

Google Groups 7-day activity
17 discussions replies
15 direct replies to your messages
5039 views of your messages
27 views of your profile


On Apr 3, 4:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
Besides the mainstream naysay gauntlet against ever exploiting the
extremely nearby planet Venus for all it’s worth, it's as though there
is also something oddly mainstream taboo/forbidden or nondisclosure
associated with any notions of independently exploiting the likely
soft innards of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon. *Go figure.

Once TBMs are situated and working sufficiently deep underground
(other than remote logistics issues that at first should be daunting),
what's the likely geological difference between our moon and Earth?

Inside the crust of our moon is probably not going to be all that much
different than tunneling inside of Earth’s granite and basalt,
especially once our TBMs get sufficiently into and below that
extremely tough paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust of 3.5+ g/cm3
that our NASA/Apollo era documented as offering a much lower density
as well as perfectly inert (not the least bit paramagnetic) and
otherwise mostly monochromatic as well as hardly the least bit dusty
on top, and there certainly wasn’t any problems with the failsafe
technology of their fly-by-rocket landers that can be manually flown
and easily scaled to suit. *However, the greatly reduced gravity
should by rights yield a very soft or porous kind of innards, along
with offering gas formed geode pockets and possibly layers of mineral
brines (even a potential of hydrocarbons in addition to encountering a
great deal of fused crust sequestered helium), in that TBMs should
whiz right through at a fraction of the difficulty found in dealing
with the inner bedrock of Earth.

No doubt the resident redneck FUD-masters and their oligarchs in
charge of mainstream damage-control, by having to continually topic/
author stalk and otherwise sequester such independent notions about
exploiting our moon, are probably going to need many extra Depends(aka
adult diapers) in order to effectively deal with their usual damage-
control exploits of topic/author stalking and trashing of this topic.
Sorry about that.

Fortunately, we only have to be realistic in order to appreciate what
the soft innards of our moon should have to offer, not to mention my
other notions of creating the LSE-CM/ISS and of otherwise relocating
the orbit of our moon as to actively station-keeping it within Earth
L1. *At least Stanley Kubrick would be so proud, not to mention most
every global domination villain on Earth, including our Paperclip
Nazis that supposedly got us safely to/from our moon.

Figuring that fewer than 10% access my topics and replies via Google
Groups or Groups+, makes my global Usenet/newsgroup audience worth at
least 44,560 per week.

Google Groups: Your 7-day activity
1 discussion started
3 discussions replies
24 direct replies to your messages
4456 views of your messages
30 views of your profile

Not sure if this reported activity is necessarily a good or bad thing,
but it seems to reflect that others are finding some of what I have to
offer as either worth their while or at least entertaining. *Perhaps
not too many teachers or instructors would have nearly the same
audience to brag about, and especially those of my devoted FUD-masters
as having an audience of roughly zero once excluding others of their
own redneck kind that must always brown-nose their oligarch peers, or
else.

On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

On Apr 3, 4:22*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
Besides the mainstream naysay gauntlet against ever exploiting the
extremely nearby planet Venus for all it’s worth, it's as though there
is also something oddly mainstream taboo/forbidden or nondisclosure
associated with any notions of independently exploiting the likely
soft innards of our physically dark and paramagneticmoon. *Go figure.

Once TBMs are situated and working sufficiently deep underground
(other than remote logistics issues that at first should be daunting),
what's the likely geological difference between ourmoonand Earth?

Inside the crust of ourmoonis probably not going to be all that much
different than tunneling inside of Earth’s granite and basalt,
especially once our TBMs get sufficiently into and below that
extremely tough paramagnetic basalt and carbonado crust of 3.5+ g/cm3
that our NASA/Apollo era documented as offering a much lower density
as well as perfectly inert (not the least bit paramagnetic) and
otherwise mostly monochromatic as well as hardly the least bit dusty
on top, and there certainly wasn’t any problems with the failsafe
technology of their fly-by-rocket landers that can be manually flown
and easily scaled to suit. *However, the greatly reduced gravity
should by rights yield a very soft or porous kind of innards, along
with offering gas formed geode pockets and possibly layers of mineral
brines (even a potential of hydrocarbons in addition to encountering a
great deal of fused crust sequestered helium), in that TBMs should
whiz right through at a fraction of the difficulty found in dealing
with the inner bedrock of Earth.

No doubt the resident redneck FUD-masters and their oligarchs in
charge of mainstream damage-control, by having to continually topic/
author stalk and otherwise sequester such independent notions about
exploiting ourmoon, are probably going to need many extra Depends(aka
adult diapers) in order to effectively deal with their usual damage-
control exploits of topic/author stalking and trashing of this topic.
Sorry about that.

Fortunately, we only have to be realistic in order to appreciate what
the soft innards of ourmoonshould have to offer, not to mention my
other notions of creating the LSE-CM/ISS and of otherwiserelocating
the orbit of ourmoonas to actively station-keeping it within Earth
L1. *At least Stanley Kubrick would be so proud, not to mention most
every global domination villain on Earth, including our Paperclip
Nazis that supposedly got us safely to/from ourmoon.

Figuring that fewer than 10% access my topics and replies via Google
Groups or Groups+, makes my global Usenet/newsgroup audience worth at
least 44,560 per week.

Google Groups: Your 7-day activity
1 discussion started
3 discussions replies
24 direct replies to your messages
4456 views of your messages
30 views of your profile

Not sure if this reported activity is necessarily a good or bad thing,
but it seems to reflect that others are finding some of what I have to
offer as either worth their while or at least entertaining. *Perhaps
not too many teachers or instructors would have nearly the same
audience to brag about, and especially those of my devoted FUD-masters
as having an audience of roughly zero once excluding others of their
own redneck kind that must always brown-nose their oligarch peers, or
else.

Earth has way more than its fair share of water, even though most of
it is salty, artificially polluted, not always where we need it most
and too often we seem to get too much of it in any one place as
stormy, frozen, thawed and flooding, and at least so far there's no
apparent shortage of oxygen (though eventually that could change as we
displace it with our volumes of CO2, NOx, Sulfurs and the likes of
hydrocarbons along with Corexit toxins plus all things connected with
multiple global military complexes that get to do as they please, just
like our global biodiversity has been forced to change or become
extinct because of us humans).

What Earth is short of (besides common sense) is any number of natural
hydrocarbons and helium, as well as numerous metals plus the vast
amount of energy resources for exploiting, processing and distributing
most of those depleted and/or rare items.

Going off-world will eventually change most of that, and it’ll
directly benefit all of humanity, as well as the global biodiversity
that should in turn directly benefit our global environment in more
ways than just making our mostly white oligarchs richer and more
powerful. The good news is that our trusty moon is a likely treasure
trove of such goodies (especially inside), not to mention what the
extremely nearby planet Venus should have to offer.

Now you can go along with either the traditional and mostly white
oligarch flow of their mainstream status quo (policy of don’t fix
anything if it isn’t already broken), and just sit back and let all
the balls drop wherever they may, or we can look ahead at the greater
potential of what exploiting off-world resources should have to offer
by essentially catching a few of those balls before they hit the
ground and fail to bounce. Instead of ignoring the GW+AGW issues that
are becoming more human caused and/or accelerated than previously
thought, perhaps we can at least consider upon what the relocation of
our moon as being actively situated within Earth L1 can do for us,
instead of it being so close and destabilizing to our global
environment.

Storms are certainly getting bad enough as the GW+AGW makes them more
frequent and measurably worse than before, though adding the extra
sucker-punch of those considerable tidal surges is what is also
clearly costing our planet at least an extra 100 billion per year to
the already trillion+ dollar cost of all those extreme weather and
seismic related issues that should be factored in. So, we get to
spend those trillion plus dollars per year and suffer countless tens
of thousands and even millions of needless deaths each and every year
that’s directly related to those gravitational factors modulating
through our whole planet, and even factoring a wee bit of its IR and
gamma that our trusty moon contributes in ways that we currently have
absolutely no control over nor do we receive any direct benefit from
either of those.

As you should know by now, I could go on and on about the benefits of
relocating our moon, plus otherwise in the meantime reiterating as to
what exploiting the surface and especially its innards should have to
offer. Eventually I’ll restart a new topic and rehash through most of
this along with additional thoughts and revised math, that you can
also contribute to.

Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains and
pretending as always being faith-based and/or politically correct,
because it's their mostly public-funded and/or faith-based job to
topic/author stalk and to otherwise FUD everything to death. Hitler
had the exact same “Paperclip” team of rusemasters and FUD-masters, as
professional clowns working and/or manipulating the locals into a
mainstream status-quo mindset, which unfortunately far too many bought
into instead of taking any logical stance against their totally
bat**** crazy peers.

Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial
is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the
negative Karma likes of 911 (make that positive Karma if you are an
oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of which wasted
decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned dollars, as well
as having systematically squandered all sorts of talent, expertise and
resources that we'll never get back, and which force other nations to
follow suit.

Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated
about. However, this not necessarily the case of each and every
location, such as mountainous and polar area can be considerably
cooler though still extremely hot by human standards that we’re
accustomed to. With applied physics and reasonable technology, the
surface of Venus can be dealt with, at least robotically, and
otherwise via composite rigid airships it can be further exploited
while easily protecting the airship crew. Of course you have to think
both really big and perhaps even small in order to fully appreciate
the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet has to offer,
because it’s the in-between that’s not easily accomplished if you can
only think of terrestrial methods that get to deal with on Earth.

Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity
treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy),
just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and otherwise
contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added IR, X-rays
and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic trauma is
desirable.


On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

On Apr 11, 9:17*am, Brad Guth wrote:
Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains and
pretending as always being faith-based and/or politically correct,
because it's their mostly public-funded and/or faith-based job to
topic/author stalk and to otherwise FUD everything to death. *Hitler
had the exact same “Paperclip” team of rusemasters and FUD-masters, as
professional clowns working and/or manipulating the locals into a
mainstream status-quo mindset, which unfortunately far too many bought
into instead of taking any logical stance against their totally
bat**** crazy peers.

Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial
is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the
negative Karma likes of 911 (make that positive Karma if you are an
oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of which wasted
decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned dollars, as well
as having systematically squandered all sorts of talent, expertise and
resources that we'll never get back, and which force other nations to
follow suit.

Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated
about. *However, this not necessarily the case of each and every
location, such as mountainous and polar area can be considerably
cooler though still extremely hot by human standards that we’re
accustomed to. *With applied physics and reasonable technology, the
surface of Venus can be dealt with, at least robotically, and
otherwise via composite rigid airships it can be further exploited
while easily protecting the airship crew. *Of course you have to think
both really big and perhaps even small in order to fully appreciate
the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet has to offer,
because it’s the in-between that’s not easily accomplished if you can
only think of terrestrial methods that get to deal with on Earth.

Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity
treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy),
just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and otherwise
contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added IR, X-rays
and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic trauma is
desirable.

On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

If we can manage to survive for days on end while on the 100% radiated
and naked surface of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon without
so much as a scratch or even one X-ray or gamma photon finding so much
as even one grain of their Kodak film that somehow offered superior
dynamic range to the best or even better than any CCD imaging, and
otherwise surviving onboard ISS while drifting in the hard vacuum of
space for months on end (not to mention other mainstream arguments of
going to/from Mars being represented as no big insurmountable deal,
and otherwise as for cruising 6+ months while remaining deep
underwater, as well surviving as from terrestrial surface environments
of always subfreezing conditions or those badly flooded to scorching
hot and dry land being perfectly doable, then perhaps using a
composite rigid airship for accomplishing Venus or especially the use
of TBMs for digging deep into our moon can't be all that
insurmountable.

On Apr 11, 9:17*am, Brad Guth wrote:
Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains and
pretending as always being faith-based and/or politically correct,
because it's their mostly public-funded and/or faith-based job to
topic/author stalk and to otherwise FUD everything to death. *Hitler
had the exact same “Paperclip” team of rusemasters and FUD-masters, as
professional clowns working and/or manipulating the locals into a
mainstream status-quo mindset, which unfortunately far too many bought
into instead of taking any logical stance against their totally
bat**** crazy peers.

Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial
is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the
negative Karma likes of 911 (make that positive Karma if you are an
oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of which wasted
decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned dollars, as well
as having systematically squandered all sorts of talent, expertise and
resources that we'll never get back, and which force other nations to
follow suit.

Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated
about. *However, this not necessarily the case of each and every
location, such as mountainous and polar area can be considerably
cooler though still extremely hot by human standards that we’re
accustomed to. *With applied physics and reasonable technology, the
surface of Venus can be dealt with, at least robotically, and
otherwise via composite rigid airships it can be further exploited
while easily protecting the airship crew. *Of course you have to think
both really big and perhaps even small in order to fully appreciate
the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet has to offer,
because it’s the in-between that’s not easily accomplished if you can
only think of terrestrial methods that get to deal with on Earth.

Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity
treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy),
just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and otherwise
contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added IR, X-rays
and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic trauma is
desirable.

On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

Andromeda could turn out as being near half again as massive as our
galaxy, and with its 300+ km/sec arrival and dominate mass should make
for roughly 2.5 billion years worth of relative safety. However, once
our galaxies start mixing it up, and some of the interacting proper
motions reaching 1000 km/sec, it’s going to be another 250 million
years worth of serious touch and go, with perhaps 250 billion stars
being directly interfered with and at least 2.5 billion stars getting
obliterated, and perhaps equally billions of others created before the
“all clear” message goes out.

In other words, our odds of escaping this cosmic gauntlet unscratched
are not very good, although a thousand to one odds against our solar
system getting obliterated would to most of us seem nearly
invincible. However, by then our sun isn’t going to be all that
terrific for us anyway, and that’s if nothing from the Sirius Oort
cloud or via any other wandering nomads of planets, planetoid or
substantial asteroids haven’t nailed us.

The good news is that a great many other solar systems should pass
within a light year, and thereby making contact with other
civilizations a whole lot better for SETI. By then we should be
recovering from WWX, and our NOW managing our planet as hosting only
500 million humans will likely be capable of interstellar treks that
offer less than a few light years distance if at least 10% ‘c’ (30,000
km/sec) velocity of human space travel can be achieved.

In the meantime, we have plenty of nearby opportunities to exploit and
even fight over, such as our moon and the extremely nearby planet
Venus, whereas each of those should have been sought after as of
decades ago, instead of mutually perpetrating cold-wars, creating and
sustaining proxy wars, and the systematic exploitations of various
civilizations here on Earth.

Apparently, any context of off-world geology remains yet another taboo/
nondisclosure topic policy, whereas anything getting posted as Usenet/
newsgroup context pertaining to the research and discovery of weird
geology or the odd sorts of physics necessary for creating such highly
unusual geodynamics of such oddly symmetrical and even somewhat
community infrastructure looking items, that by rights should not
exist, is simply not being allowed to go public or much less into any
of our K-12 indoctrinated mindsets. Oddly, we can’t even seem to
openly discuss exploiting the innards of our moon.

Surely there must be at least one geophysics qualified expertise
that’s willing to contribute his/her feedback, on behalf of
interpreting whatever these highly unusual geometrical items could
represent, and/or at least given us some terrestrial examples that are
clearly of perfectly natural formations for the rest of us to compare.

Sadly I’ve been asking this of our NASA, as well as multiple other
public funded agencies and always giving an open channel to anyone
willing to give this one image of GuthVenus their best shot in the
dark or even their best geology swag. Apparently they need better
than 12 years in order to decide what to do next.

Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains (cloaked as
always politically and faith-based correct), because it's their mostly
public-funded and/or faith-based job to topic/author stalk and to
otherwise FUD everything to death. Hitler had the exact same
“Paperclip” team of ruse-masters and FUD-masters, as professional
media damage-control clowns working and/or manipulating the locals
into a mainstream status-quo mindset of always following order, which
unfortunately far too many have bought into instead of taking any
logically deductive formulated stance against their totally bat****
crazy peers.

Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial
is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the sort of
negative Karma likes of 911 (make that a whole lot of positive Karma
if you are an oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of
which wasted decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned
dollars, as well as having systematically squandered all sorts of
talent, expertise and resources that we'll never get back, and which
also forced other nations to follow suit.

Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated
about. However, this not necessarily the case of each and every
location, such as mountainous and polar areas can be considerably
cooler though still extremely hot by the sorts of human Goldilocks
standards that we’re accustomed to. However, with applied physics and
reasonable technology, the surface of Venus can be dealt with, at
least robotically, and otherwise via composite rigid airships it can
be further exploited while easily protecting the airship crew. Of
course you have to think really big and perhaps even small in order to
fully appreciate the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet
has to offer, because it’s the in-between that’s not easily
accomplished if you can only think of terrestrial methods that we get
to deal with on Earth.

Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity
treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy),
that’s just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and
otherwise contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added
IR, X-rays and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic
trauma is desirable.

Try thinking this one through for yourself, as to considering what our
planet needs (especially if there's world peace and everyone [10+
billion humans] get to live as large as yourself)?

The surface of our moon isn’t terribly inviting, even though our NASA/
Apollo era proved it was entirely passive/inert as well as
monochromatic and actually quite reflective, as well as hardly the
least bit radioactive nor even the least bit ionized (as though
protected by some magic shield), and it wasn’t even the least bit
dusty to walk or even drive upon its monochromatic crystal-dry
surface, whereas Venus may also be considered as forbidden and
otherwise taboo, as always too hot and nasty for any naked Goldilocks
to fully appreciate, but otherwise it should offer easy access to any
number of valuable elements, as well as offering us a free-for-all
exploitation treasure trove resource that terrestrial tree-huggers and
environmentalists can march, protest, suck eggs and otherwise bully
all they want because, it’ll do them no good.

Earth has way more than its fair share of water, even though most of
it is salty, artificially polluted, not always where we need it most
and too often we seem to get way too much of it in any one place as
stormy, frozen, thawed and flooding takes place, and otherwise at
least so far there's no apparent shortage of oxygen (though eventually
that could change as we displace it with our considerable volumes of
heavy CO2, NOx, Sulfurs and the likes of hydrocarbons along with
Corexit toxins plus all things connected with multiple global military
complexes that get to do as they please, just like our global
biodiversity has always been forced to change and/or adapt unless they
give up by becoming extinct because of us humans).

What Earth is running short of (besides common sense) is any number of
natural hydrocarbons and helium, as well as numerous metals plus the
vast amount of clean energy resources as for exploiting, processing
and distributing most of those depleted and/or rare items that most of
us can’t hardly afford considering all the ongoing screw-ups we get to
keep paying for.

Going off-world will eventually change most of that for the better,
and it’ll directly benefit all of humanity, as well as improve the
global biodiversity that should in turn directly benefit our global
environment in more ways than just making our mostly white oligarchs
richer and more powerful. The good news is that our trusty moon is a
likely treasure trove of such goodies (especially inside), not to
mention what the extremely nearby planet Venus should have to offer.

Now you can go along with either the traditional and mostly white
oligarch media flow of their mainstream status quo (policy of don’t
fix anything if it isn’t already broken), and just sit back and let
all the balls drop wherever they may, or we can look ahead at the
greater potential of what exploiting off-world resources should have
to offer by essentially catching a few of those balls before they hit
the ground and fail to bounce. Instead of ignoring the GW+AGW issues
that are becoming more human caused and/or accelerated than previously
thought, perhaps we can at least consider upon what the relocation of
our moon as being actively situated within Earth L1 can do for us,
instead of it being so close and destabilizing to our global
environment.

Storms are certainly getting bad enough as the GW+AGW makes them more
frequent and measurably worse than before, though adding the extra
sucker-punch of those considerable tidal surges is what is also
clearly costing our planet at least an extra 100 billion per year to
the already trillion+ dollar cost of all those extreme weather and
seismic related issues that should always be factored in. So, we get
to spend those trillion plus dollars per year and suffer countless
tens of thousands and even millions of needless deaths each and every
year that’s directly related to those gravitational factors modulating
through our whole planet, and even factoring a wee bit of its IR and
gamma that our trusty moon contributes in ways that we currently have
absolutely no control over nor do we receive any direct benefits that
outweigh the negatives obtained from either of those.

As you should know by now, I could go on and on about the positive/
constructive benefits of exploiting Venus as well as relocating our
moon and otherwise exploiting Selene for all she’s worth, plus
otherwise in the meantime reiterating as to what direct benefits of
exploiting the surface and especially of what its innards should have
to offer.

Eventually I’ll have to restart a new topic and rehash through most of
this manifesto, along with additional thoughts and revised math, that
which you can also contribute to.


On Apr 11, 9:17*am, Brad Guth wrote:
Pay no special attention to those hiding behind curtains and
pretending as always being faith-based and/or politically correct,
because it's their mostly public-funded and/or faith-based job to
topic/author stalk and to otherwise FUD everything to death. *Hitler
had the exact same “Paperclip” team of rusemasters and FUD-masters, as
professional clowns working and/or manipulating the locals into a
mainstream status-quo mindset, which unfortunately far too many bought
into instead of taking any logical stance against their totally
bat**** crazy peers.

Of course this mainstream status-quo policy of obfuscation and denial
is what brought us a mutually perpetrated cold-war era and the
negative Karma likes of 911 (make that positive Karma if you are an
oligarch of our military industrial complex), each of which wasted
decades and costing us trillions of our hard earned dollars, as well
as having systematically squandered all sorts of talent, expertise and
resources that we'll never get back, and which force other nations to
follow suit.

Venus is pretty much as hot and nasty as we’ve all been indoctrinated
about. *However, this not necessarily the case of each and every
location, such as mountainous and polar area can be considerably
cooler though still extremely hot by human standards that we’re
accustomed to. *With applied physics and reasonable technology, the
surface of Venus can be dealt with, at least robotically, and
otherwise via composite rigid airships it can be further exploited
while easily protecting the airship crew. *Of course you have to think
both really big and perhaps even small in order to fully appreciate
the potential of what exploiting such a nearby planet has to offer,
because it’s the in-between that’s not easily accomplished if you can
only think of terrestrial methods that get to deal with on Earth.

Our physically dark and naked moon is just another metallicity
treasure trove of valuable resources (including much clean energy),
just sitting out there and causing us mostly grief and otherwise
contributing very little terrestrial benefit, unless added IR, X-rays
and gamma plus loads of tidal surging and increased seismic trauma is
desirable.

On Feb 18, 6:56*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?

Terraforming the moon underground: (mining plus creating safe habitats
inside of that extremely tough crust) is not nearly as insurmountable
as you might think.

Besides the mainstream naysay gauntlet against folks ever exploiting
the extremely nearby planet Venus for all it’s worth, it's as though
there is also something oddly mainstream taboo/forbidden or
nondisclosure associated with any notions of independently exploiting
the likely soft innards of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon.
Go figure that we’re either being intentionally snookered or simply
misdirected by our oligarch peers.

Once TBMs(tunnel boring machines) are situated and working
sufficiently deep underground (other than remote logistics issues that
at first should be daunting), what's the likely geological difference
between our moon and Earth?

Inside the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is probably not going
to be all that much different than tunneling inside of Earth’s granite
and much less paramagnetic basalt, especially once our TBMs get
sufficiently into and below that extremely tough paramagnetic basalt
and carbonado tough crust of 3.5+ g/cm3 that our NASA/Apollo era had
documented as offering a much lower density as well as perfectly inert
(not the least bit paramagnetic or hardly even mineral or other metal
worthy) and otherwise as mostly monochromatic as well as hardly even
the least bit dusty on top, and there certainly wasn’t any problems
with the failsafe technology of their fly-by-rocket landers that can
be manually flown and easily scaled to suit pretty much any payload
tonnage. However, the greatly reduced gravity should by rights yield
a very soft or porous kind of moon innards, along with offering gas
formed geode pockets and possibly layers of mineral brines (even a
potential of hydrocarbons in addition to encountering a great deal of
fused crust sequestered helium), in that once sufficiently underneath
is when TBMs should whiz right through at a fraction of the difficulty
found in dealing with the inner bedrock of Earth.

No doubt the resident redneck FUD-masters and their oligarchs of
authority in charge of mainstream damage-control, by having to
continually topic/author stalk and otherwise sequester such
independent notions about exploiting our moon, are probably going to
need many extra Depends(aka adult diapers) in order to effectively
deal with their usual damage-control exploits of topic/author stalking
and trashing of this topic. Sorry about that.

Fortunately, we only have to be realistic in order to appreciate what
the inverted density or softer innards of our moon should have to
offer, not to mention my other notions of creating the LSE-CM/ISS and
of otherwise relocating the orbit of our moon as to actively station-
keeping it within Earth L1. At least Stanley Kubrick would be so
proud, not to mention most every global domination villain on Earth,
including those of our Paperclip Nazis that supposedly got us safely
to/from our moon without a scratch.

Figuring conservatively that fewer than 10% access my topics and
replies via Google Groups or Groups+, makes my global Usenet/newsgroup
audience worth at least 32,210 per week.

Google Groups: Your 7-day activity
14 discussions replies
29 direct replies to your messages
3221views of your messages
14 views of your profile

Not sure if this reported activity is necessarily a good or bad thing,
but none the less it seems to reflect that others are finding some of
what I have to offer as either worth their while or at least
entertaining. Perhaps there’s not too many teachers or instructors
that would have nearly the same audience to brag about, and especially
those of my devoted FUD-masters as having an audience of roughly zero
once excluding others of their own redneck FUD-master kind that must
always brown-nose their oligarch peers, or else risk losing their
funding.

On 4/21/2013 5:53 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Terraforming the moon underground: (mining plus creating safe habitats
inside of that extremely tough crust) is not nearly as insurmountable
as you might think.

Besides the mainstream naysay gauntlet against folks ever exploiting
the extremely nearby planet Venus for all it’s worth, it's as though
there is also something oddly mainstream taboo/forbidden or
nondisclosure associated with any notions of independently exploiting
the likely soft innards of our physically dark and paramagnetic moon.
Go figure that we’re either being intentionally snookered or simply
misdirected by our oligarch peers.

Once TBMs(tunnel boring machines) are situated and working
sufficiently deep underground (other than remote logistics issues that
at first should be daunting), what's the likely geological difference
between our moon and Earth?

Inside the paramagnetic basalt crust of our moon is probably not going
to be all that much different than tunneling inside of Earth’s granite
and much less paramagnetic basalt, especially once our TBMs get
sufficiently into and below that extremely tough paramagnetic basalt
and carbonado tough crust of 3.5+ g/cm3 that our NASA/Apollo era had
documented as offering a much lower density as well as perfectly inert
(not the least bit paramagnetic or hardly even mineral or other metal
worthy) and otherwise as mostly monochromatic as well as hardly even
the least bit dusty on top, and there certainly wasn’t any problems
with the failsafe technology of their fly-by-rocket landers that can
be manually flown and easily scaled to suit pretty much any payload
tonnage. However, the greatly reduced gravity should by rights yield
a very soft or porous kind of moon innards, along with offering gas
formed geode pockets and possibly layers of mineral brines (even a
potential of hydrocarbons in addition to encountering a great deal of
fused crust sequestered helium), in that once sufficiently underneath
is when TBMs should whiz right through at a fraction of the difficulty
found in dealing with the inner bedrock of Earth.

No doubt the resident redneck FUD-masters and their oligarchs of
authority in charge of mainstream damage-control, by having to
continually topic/author stalk and otherwise sequester such
independent notions about exploiting our moon, are probably going to
need many extra Depends(aka adult diapers) in order to effectively
deal with their usual damage-control exploits of topic/author stalking
and trashing of this topic. Sorry about that.

Fortunately, we only have to be realistic in order to appreciate what
the inverted density or softer innards of our moon should have to
offer, not to mention my other notions of creating the LSE-CM/ISS and
of otherwise relocating the orbit of our moon as to actively station-
keeping it within Earth L1. At least Stanley Kubrick would be so
proud, not to mention most every global domination villain on Earth,
including those of our Paperclip Nazis that supposedly got us safely
to/from our moon without a scratch.

Figuring conservatively that fewer than 10% access my topics and
replies via Google Groups or Groups+, makes my global Usenet/newsgroup
audience worth at least 32,210 per week.

Google Groups: Your 7-day activity
14 discussions replies
29 direct replies to your messages
3221views of your messages
14 views of your profile

Not sure if this reported activity is necessarily a good or bad thing,
but none the less it seems to reflect that others are finding some of
what I have to offer as either worth their while or at least
entertaining. Perhaps there’s not too many teachers or instructors
that would have nearly the same audience to brag about, and especially
those of my devoted FUD-masters as having an audience of roughly zero
once excluding others of their own redneck FUD-master kind that must
always brown-nose their oligarch peers, or else risk losing their
funding.


chuckle....

have you EVER considered.....
that the reason you never get any serious responses..
is the absurdity of your thoughts....