|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus
Tonne per tonne of whatever dry-ice(CO2) that can be effectively shot at
the moon, and being that it's not the least bit intended as for orbiting but intentionally thrusted as for directly impacting the mostly basalt surface. Persay, how much pulverised lunar basalt is going to happen/transpire per tonne of whatever could be impacting at 30 km/s, if not 100 km/s? Besides using blocks or spheres of raw dry-ice (perhaps having a core of LOX), what other substances and/or shell densities might enable the best kinetic energy worth of vaporising lunar basalt? What's the maximum possible Vf (final velocity) of impact per delivery? Obviously one method of achieving maximum velocity is going for the long way around the sun, or at least around Venus, thus arriving in the opposit direction, accomplishing a good solar/Venus boosted acceleration plus the merging orbital SOA adding 30 km/s should rather improve those impact(Vf) energies by perhaps creating a great deal more than 100 km/s. Unfortunately, dry-ice is not going to remain as a solid by the time of lunar impact, however other substances might be as good if not somewhat better than the worth of CO2 contributions to the lunar atmosphere. Just in case this topic is a wee bit over your mainstream box edge, I do have a few alternatives that can be selected at random, or perhaps eventually I'll do whatever I can, as to introduce such topics as the need arises. Regards, Brad Guth / http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon requires an atmosphere that'll stick around.
Besides the supposed 2e5 population of atoms/cm3 that NASA/Apollo stipulates as having been available, whereas at 5 atoms/cm3 being what recent CCD cameras were capable of detecting as a final trail of sodium atoms created by meteor impacts vaporising basalt, and if those trailing sodium atoms having managed to be detected as 2 atoms/cm3 out past 900,000 km behind the moon, as such being initially impact created and then blown off the moon in part by the 30 km/s headway, and otherwise by solar winds of better than 600 km/s, as then lo and behold there's surely an indirect method of our extrapolating upon the near surface populations of these freshly created sodium atoms. I've asked of others to share in whatever they think this revised population could represent, though all I ever obtained was their pro-NASA/Apollo or bust contributions. However, if we utilized the square of the distance as based upon establishing the ever increasing atom population as this impact induced cloud of sodium nears the lunar surface, this seems like a viable though make-do analogy that's perfectly acceptable, and whereas the following values become sufficiently true. @900,000 km = 5 atoms/cm3 @450,000 km = 20 atoms/cm3 @900.0 km = 5e6 atoms/cm3 @900 meters = 5e12 atoms/cm2 @0.9 meters = 5e18 atoms/cm3 Of course there's most likely other than just the likes of sodium to being created via meteor impacts. Surely a few lighter than basalt sodium(Na2O 3.34%) and of those atoms much heavier of basalt silica(SiO2 59%) should also have been vaporised into action. Since heavier atoms of perhaps oxygen, argon and CO2 (as nighttime dry-ice) are bound to already exist, along with great numbers of silica and metallic substances and just about anything other you can think of (possibly Rn/radon) is somewhere to being found upon or within the lunar surface that's hosting such a viable morgue of whatever the universe has had to offer, whereas those elements heavier than sodium atoms should stick around. Unlike Earth, whereas the vast bulk of nearly everything that's headed for us or within our path is either deflected and/or absorbed by our atmosphere (smallest suff dealt with by our Van Allen zone of death), as such not physically arriving upon nor accumulating for the billions of years as the case with the lunar environment. Everything from Venus spores to flying diatoms are surely to be included within the collective matrix of all that's otherwise of random space debris, from what's less than sand(dust-bunnies of 2 mg) to the remains of serious bolder sized (100+kg) meteors that's been within the path and gravity influence of the moon is in fact eventually collected by way of impacting upon the lunar surface, that is if it wasn't just passing through like the Leonid meteor(s), or hasn't been otherwise influenced per arriving upon Earth. What I'm suggesting, that perhaps we too should have been tossing loads of stuff at our moon, the more the better, and especially since almost anything that reaches the lunar surface impacts with such great velocity and thereby interacts/reacts by essentially becoming mutually vaporised, and if that effort should intentionally include the heavier sorts of atoms within dry-ice(co2) and those elements within basalt that'll likely stick around, this sort bombardment (natural or artificial) would certainly add to the necessary atmospheric substance rather than subtract. Once there's even a slight atmosphere of 0.01 bar, and even if the depth is relatively slight, this is absolutely good for accommodating reentry and deployments of 4~5 times the payloads of what's being deilvered to Mars. And, we need not have to breath this stuff, since most everything should remain as robotics until we've established a suitable underground abode, and/or the LSE-CM/ISS. If you or you know of someone that can share some honest specifics, I'll insure that folks receive all the credits for such. Although, if you've got only mainstream flak to share, as that too I'll insure that you receive all the credits possible, and then some. Regards, Brad Guth / BBC h2g2 U206251 http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Here's another honest thought about terraforming our moon. After all
folks, that moon is clearly an orbe that's situated within nearly the ideal zone of life, thereby a whole lot warmer than Mars, while not nearly as hot and nasty as Mercury for it's having nearly zilch worth of an atmosphere. Geologically the moon should already have a good number of raw elements (extremes of somewhat vacuum/freeze dried if not otherwise being boiled off elements), to be including He3 as well as trapped CO2 and otherwise absolute loads of O2 to work with, minus whatever water or ice because in such a vacuum that aspect of whatever H2O can't possibly reside be anywhere near the surface, and certainly of anything vaporised much lighter than sodium simply isn't going to stick around unless the average temperature becomes somewhat moderated, thus lunar nighttime becomes not quite so cold, and the scorching daytime a little less hot, along with considerably less solar/cosmic TBI dosage, and subsequently even greater reductions in secondary hard-X-ray considerations. Being that the current reentry terminal velocity status is nearly unlimited, the arriving items are intended as for artificially impacting the moon need not be all that large nor dense. Even hollow spheres or blocks of dry-ice with perhaps liquified oxygen(LXO) within would pack quite a nifty kinetic wallop. Say those spheres of 200 kg each as deployed items from 2r(1738 km off the deck) as for being specifically directed at the moon (thus going in for the kill and already making good SOA), whereas if the average gravity constant were roughly 1 m/s/s, as lo and behold should impact at nearly 1700 km/s, and even if those items were having a slight Vt to deal with, as all we'd have to do is repackage the solid/liquified CO2/Oxygen within more substantial projectiles of dry-ice or, if need be a hearty shell of U238, whereas the resulting impacts should certainly be even better at vaporising a good number of basalt tonnes. Thus in addition to whatever is lunar that becomes vaporised into atmosphere, the shell and contents of whatever we're delivering should only add to the relatively permanent matrix of lunar atmosphere. Keeping in mind that the notion of creating this artificial atmosphere isn't so much for our breathing, as it's for creating a slight but usable factor of Vt. If we only obtained 1%, thus 0.01 Bar and of perhaps 50% of that being O2 would certainly improve the way for future deliveries of whatever robotics and even manned landers as becoming a whole lot more doable than for Mars. Ideally, at 0.1 Bar (10% of what Earth has to offer) we might even get ourselves used to such thin air if it were mostly (greater than 50%) O2, with perhaps the remainder of argon and co2. Of course, there'd still be far too little protection from solar and cosmic radiation, and whatever else that's out there is bound to impact will for the most part still get through such a relatively thin surround of atmosphere, thereby remaining somewhat though a bit less lethal as to strolling about via moonsuit. There'd also be little chance of that improved environment ever sustaining open water, especially since at 0.1 Bar the boil-off point of water should remain well below the nasty daytime thermal environment that should become only slightly moderated due to having this improved body of atmosphere. Regardless of however much water is imported, this lunar surface environment should remain absolutely bone dry by even Mars standards, and as such the toxic affects of CO2 are somewhat if not entirely minimized in much the same fashion as upon Venus where sulphur crystals and even larger amounts of CO2 should be relatively harmless, that is as long as you don't mind a little lung burning from the co2 reacting poorly with internal body fluids. What I'm suggesting isn't without good reason and of the physics necessary, and it's certainly not the least bit beyond our current capabilities of terraforming the moon into a far better place. Regards, Brad Guth / BBC h2g2 U206251 http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Guth wrote:
Just in case this topic is a wee bit over your mainstream box edge, I do have a few alternatives that can be selected at random, or perhaps eventually I'll do whatever I can, as to introduce such topics as the need arises. Brad, it's been a while since you've posted here in ssh. Have you been well? Jim Davis |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote: Brad, it's been a while since you've posted here in ssh. Have you been well? Recently, or ever? ;-) Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I've contributed yet another of my village idiot topics;
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding" within Newsgroup: sci.astro.seti Thus I'll suppose here too is representing another nullification zone of nondisclosure or bust cultism to deal with, as folks don't want to even think about the truth and nothing but the truth, especially if there's consequences and remorse getting involved. Good Christ almighty folks; if this sort of topic about our moon and the likes of He3/3He helping us effectively deal with the environment of Earth, and eventually of the rather hot and nasty prospects of appreciating other life that's surviving upon Venus is over the line or too far outside your mainstream box, if this topic isn't even sufficiently 'sci.skeptic' qualified, then what the heck is a qualified topic within this 'forum that sucks'? Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the very get go. Once the LSE-CM/ISS by China is up and running, as such the daunting task of terraforming that physically dark and nasty sucker becomes doable, especially if mostly robotics and a few humans are working within the relative safety via earthshine. As long as we're in the process of losing our protective magnetosphere at the ongoing demise of -.05%/year, as such that factor alone could become the worse news to our frail DNA than whatever's global warming us to death. With applied technology and spare energy (also meaning your having spare loot), we can adapt ourselves to surviving whatever's too hot, too cold or even too ocean rising wet. However, cosmic and solar radiation is an entirely different matter, as having spare energy simply isn't going to protect your frail DNA unless it's in the form of being artificially shielded from ourpolluted sky, that's no longer of sufficient density w/o magnetosphere in order to defend yourself from the influx gauntlet of all that's becoming dark and nasty (including the TBI worthy dosage that's derived from our very own nearby moon). What's so terribly wrong with relocating our moon to Earth's L1, thus blocking off roughly 3.5% of our sun, as well as having gotten rid of most of that rather pesky gravity/tidal force, plus having eliminated the secondary IR/FIR that's also a touch global warming us to death at the same time? Wouldn't it also be a darn good thing, for getting that horrific orb of gamma and hard-X-rays a little further away from us? At having established four times the distance, we'd have roughly 1/16th of that lethal dosage to deal with, and due to such efforts having accomplished nearly zilch worth of centripetal related force is why we'd have accomplished a mere fraction of what's pertaining to tidal energy influx that's keeping us a little too extra warm (inside and out). Establishing the LSE-CM/ISS (along with its tether dipole element that's still capable of reaching to within 4r of Earth) is still perfectly doable, and actually much better off for such being within the protective shade of that moon, and otherwise getting full-earthshine illuminated as being more than ideal for such a lunar space elevator and interplanetary depot/gateway of efficient operations. Where's the down side? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus
Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the very get go. Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus
In sci.space.policy Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Brad Guth wrote: "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the very get go. Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum. Mars is pretty near vacuum. A several PSI near-pure O2 atmosphere would support life, and last several thousand years before decaying. Achieving this is 'interesting'. With the amount of material processing to get oxygen, you may as well make a tiny (comparatively) amount of glass, and float this on the top of the atmosphere at the .1PSI or so altitude. This helps to completely avoid the atmospheric decay problem, and you can tint the glass to create pretty pictures, and remove UV. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus
In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote: With the amount of material processing to get oxygen, you may as well make a tiny (comparatively) amount of glass, and float this on the top of the atmosphere at the .1PSI or so altitude. This helps to completely avoid the atmospheric decay problem, and you can tint the glass to create pretty pictures, and remove UV. And finance the project by selling advertising space on the glass. :-) -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? | Imperishable Stars | Misc | 46 | October 8th 04 04:08 PM |
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 27th 04 07:18 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | UK Astronomy | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
Space Calendar - June 27, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 28th 03 05:36 PM |