LRO; Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified

On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:
In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I didn't say it was 99% hollow, nor have I insisted the interior
density is 1 kg/m3 (although sodium is kinda low density).

If the paramagnetic basalt crust and many of those heavier minerals
are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of carbonado and
heavier elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

~ BG

On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I have never once suggested a lower mass, or that our moon was 99%
hollow, nor have I insisted the interior density as low as 1 kg/m3
(although the element sodium is kinda low density at .97 g/cm3).

If the thick and paramagnetic basalt crust plus many of those heavier
lunar elements are situated near the surface, not to mention meteor
deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and of course those much heavier
metallic elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2
billion cubic kilometers)?

How many interior safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
still going for infrastructure. Seems more than adequate if such a
semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an interstellar survival craft
(aka lifeboat), and better yet if it became heavily iced over along
the way.

Along with my LSE-CM/ISS is what makes the to/from aspects of
utilizing our Selene/moon rather simple and energy efficient.
~ BG

On Jul 3, 10:12*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
still going for infrastructure. *Seems more than adequate if such a
semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an interstellar survival craft
(aka lifeboat), and better yet if it became heavily iced over along
the way.

How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?

On Jul 3, 8:55*pm, Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:12*pm, BradGuth wrote:

Even if we’re talking 1% hollow is still offering an off-world habitat
that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55%
still going for infrastructure. *Seems more than adequate if such a
semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an interstellar survival craft
(aka lifeboat), and better yet if it became heavily iced over along
the way.

How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?

Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/
gateway, and otherwise direct shipments of fish and rice via North
Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo Space Port) .

As I'd said, roughly 55% as infrastructure should provide enough
volume as industrial greenhouse and whatever assortments of chickens,
turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth isn't ever going to be very far
away, and I can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous supply of
just about anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of other
precious elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed and
exported to Earth, or effectively stored for future needs.

Obviously we'd need at most fewer than 10 billion units as habitats,
leaving 95% as infrastructure if working with a 1% hollow moon.

Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth
becomes a thriving plant and animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of
humans. (perhaps 1% stays with Earth, to repair/salvage the frail
environment and help feed the folks living within the moon)

Trust me, I have a plan. It's complex and not perfect, but at least
it's a whole lot better than most any other plan.

~ BG

An aluminum foam could also be low density and resistant to pressure.

On Jul 3, 3:03*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:

On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I didn't say it was 99% hollow, nor have I insisted the interior
density is 1 kg/m3 (although sodium is kinda low density).

If the paramagnetic basalt crust and many of those heavier minerals
are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of carbonado and
heavier elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. *Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

*~ BG

On Jul 3, 10:45*pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
wrote:
An aluminum foam could also be low density and resistant to pressure.

On Jul 3, 3:03*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:

On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I didn't say it was 99% hollow, nor have I insisted the interior
density is 1 kg/m3 (although sodium is kinda low density).

If the paramagnetic basalt crust and many of those heavier minerals
are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of carbonado and
heavier elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. *Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

*~ BG

Here's something else to think about.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ell2.html#wtls

~ BG

That's only true of gravity follows an inverse squared rule.

On Jul 3, 11:30*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:45*pm, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher



wrote:
An aluminum foam could also be low density and resistant to pressure.

On Jul 3, 3:03*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:

On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

I didn't say it was 99% hollow, nor have I insisted the interior
density is 1 kg/m3 (although sodium is kinda low density).

If the paramagnetic basalt crust and many of those heavier minerals
are near the surface, not to mention meteor deposits of carbonado and
heavier elements, how about considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers)?

How many safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. *Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for infrastructure is still going to offer
1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

*~ BG

Here's something else to think about.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
*http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ell2.html#wtls

*~ BG

On Jul 4, 1:30*am, Six of Nine or Half-dozen of the Oher
wrote:
That's only true of gravity follows an inverse squared rule.

Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ell2.html#wtls

This wouldn't apply unless the hollow was a sphere at nearly dead
center, but it's still worth considering, and especially if the bulk
of lunar mass is held within its thick crust. Gas bubbles could
easily have created such geode hollows or pockets of crystal lined
volumes within the moon.

~ BG

On Jul 3, 2:36*pm, Father Haskell wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:46*am, BradGuth wrote:

In addition to all that LRO and LCROSS has to offer, along with
penetrating radar and remote seismic methods at their disposal once
again, perhaps our spendy and extremely belated LRO mission plus all
that's otherwise terrestrial based, as remote data gathering via laser
cannons and seriously big radar, as such is going to help discover
just how hollow our moon actually is.

How can a hollow moon raise tides on Earth?

Here’s another edited food for thought;
Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ell2.html#wtls

This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't apply to our naked
Selene/moon interior unless that hollow was a substantial sphere at
nearly dead center, but it's still worth our considering, and
especially what-if worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is being held
within its thick and paramagnetic basalt crust. Natural/geothermal
and isotope generated gas bubbles could easily have created such geode
hollows or pockets of trapped mineral brines and perhaps as having
become crystal lined volumes or geological anomalies as voids within
the moon, as well as the continual pull of Earth’s gravity may have
significantly offset the interior core, leaving a substantial hollow/
void towards the backside, as well as for a Earth and Selene
lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within.

I have never once suggested a lower than 7.35e22 kg mass, or that our
moon was 99% hollow, nor have I ever insisted the interior density as
low as 1 kg/m3 (although the element sodium is kinda low density at .
97 g/cm3). So don’t get yourself all huffy about any of this.

If the thick and paramagnetic basalt crust plus many of those heavier
lunar elements (supposedly derived from the core of Earth plus
whatever having impacted Earth) are situated or somehow having been
compounded near the surface, not to mention a bazillion meteor
deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and of course always those much
heavier metallic elements including thorium, iron, nickel and loads of
titanium, how about our considering a 10% hollow moon (2.2 billion
cubic kilometers worth)?

How many interior safe habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually worth?

At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide
percentage (more than half) for a rational (meaning intelligent)
infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.

Even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering an off-
world habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along
with 55% still going for infrastructure. Seems more than adequate if
such a semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an off-world shelter or
interstellar survival craft (red supergiant and helium flashover
lifeboat), and of course better yet if it became heavily iced over
along the way.

Along with my LSE-CM/ISS is what makes the to/from aspects of
utilizing our Selene/moon rather simple and energy efficient, though
most likely as owned and operated by China and India (so expect to pay
a hefty toll).

Father Haskell:
How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/
gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice
via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo
Space Port).

As I'd said, roughly 55% as infrastructure should provide enough
volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating whatever assortments
of chickens, turkeys and pigs. You know, Earth isn't ever going to be
very far away, and I can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous
supply of just about anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of
other precious elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed
and efficiently exported to Earth, or effectively stored for future
needs.

Obviously we'd need at most fewer than 10 billion units as lunar
habitats, leaving 95% as infrastructure if working within a 1% hollow
moon.

Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth
becomes a thriving plant and animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of
humans and their industrial scale polluting. (perhaps 1% stays with
Earth in order to repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed
the other 99% of folks living within the moon, and subsequent visiting
of Earth would become a highly restricted privilege). However, if
WWIII gets all out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise
chemical and biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places
on Earth worth risking genetic mutations to your frail DNA.

Trust me, I have a plan. It's rather complex and certainly not
perfect, but at least it's a whole lot better constructive option than
most any other plan of humanity (mostly the rich and powerful)
surviving off-world while the rest of us village idiots get to tough
it out and otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily
benefits these rich and powerful individuals.
~ BG