|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The 0.1~1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
On Dec 29 2012, 9:13*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:00*am, Brad Guth wrote: Since I received nothing but the usual topic/author stalking grief and avoidance about our potentially hollow moon (natural as well as TBM hollowed out), I’ve revised this topic from original “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to offering “The 0.1~1% hollow moon”. *Not that it really matters all that much, because the mainstream of our insider status- quo still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing mainstream media or even K12s to pick up on any notions of such. Within or especially under that tough shell of our moon is where life even as we know it could with some applied technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of providing exotic minerals or rare elements and perhaps lots more. At 0.1% hollow (as within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily enough TBM excavated to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable problem. With near zero gravity near or within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and otherwise perfectly good odds that the surrounding substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow geology (poorly compacted or naturally porous) that's sandwiched between the offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our Selene/moon, as supposedly formed quickly within a vacuum, is perhaps quite usability hollow enough to begin with. Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to offering a minimal volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of 2.2e19 m3 is worth 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as representing 3.14e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our lifeboat in case our Earth gets nailed by another really big one) The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise paramagnetic and mascon populated basalt crust itself could also offer a few existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep and volumetric enough to safely utilize as is. *In fact, it might be extremely odd if such natural voids didn’t exist. *Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (as little as 1% of their diameter), almost as though that original surface prior to impact as having a thick layer of protective ice. *Of somewhat newer and much smaller diameter craters offer bedrock impressions or morph depths of 10%, with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of 2:1. *However, one of the most recent LRO discovered craters or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small is also suggesting as offering a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a significant vertical hole or cave like formation of a crust opening into a hollow rill or lava tube). If there’s anything capable of holding a given molecule of h2o together, it’s those strong electrostatic, paramagnetic plus all the usual atomic and subatomic strong binding forces, plus whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure or even that of aether that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked aether pressure simply can’t coexist w/o molecular gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if there’s a viable shell or artificial energy field of some kind). The extremely thick (50150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s fused solid and so mineral saturated as paramagnetic about our physically dark Selene/ moon, offers an absolutely terrific shell that isn’t easily penetrated (not even by helium). Of water exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the near ideal vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much along with ample sunlight and secondary IR happens instantly as to demolecularization or subliming itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s going to be pretty much instantaneous or even explosive regardless of its volume and original mass. *Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or whatever molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid elements represent a zero delta-V and especially as being so easily lost to that 300+ km/sec of hot solar wind whenever such molecules are situated within that extreme EML1 vacuum. *https://groups.google.com/forum/m/ *http://groups.google.com/groups/search *http://translate.google.com/# *Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus” *The 0.1~1% hollow moon / Brad Guth Is there any evidence or objective proof that our moon isn't the least bit hollow or even porous? With a somewhat thinner crust as recently reported, it seems entirely logical that escaping gasses and the continual build-up of internal gasses as well as fluids could provide for quit a bit of geode pockets and porous rock, as well as an inverted interior density that TBMs could more easily deal with. Those surface gamma spectrometer details obtained from orbit, giving us good map of rare elements and a better understanding of those mascon issues, suggesting that internal activity as well as via asteroid impacts have created a highly complex and valuable item for us to mine, whereas with dozens of mostly robotic TBMs hard at work, and thereby safe underground habitats easily created, represents all sorts of mining and processing opportunities within easy reach, not to mention the enormous value of simply utilizing its L1 and the easily tethered dipole element that can reach from the lunar surface out safely to within 6r of Earth. Our NASA and DARPA simply didn't have to fake everything about our moon, because they only had to fudge a little on those most risky parts of their Apollo missions that we couldn't safely perform 40+ years ago, as supposedly having so much better capability and reliability than we can accomplish nowadays, of which the best of modern fly-by-rocket lander capability offers us a kind of zilch worth of any viable fly-by-rocket lander that could be deployed and honestly trusted to perform without a hitch. However, accomplishing one-way soft or semi-hard landings and obviously obtaining science via impacting have been technically doable, as have a limited degree of robotic accomplished deployments on behalf of assorted science that's unfortunately extremely limited since nothing of those has ever been established as fully interactive and as such having never been allowed to be independently accessed and utilized for the greater good by those outside of NASA, DARPA or even anything Russian, as for privately obtaining their very own direct and raw science about the physically dark and naked surface of our paramagnetic moon remains as strictly nondisclosure/taboo. What little we know about our moon is 100% derived from the victors of our mutually perpetrated cold-war era, in that each having numerous motives, means and opportunity to snooker and dumbfound us into accepting and obviously paying for everything. http://groups.google.com/groups/search http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth | BradGuth | Astronomy Misc | 103 | November 6th 09 12:50 PM |
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 1 | September 15th 09 03:47 AM |
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 1 | August 9th 09 06:49 PM |
The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth | BradGuth | Policy | 1 | July 19th 09 09:19 PM |
The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth | YKhan | Policy | 1 | July 18th 09 12:52 PM |