Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1

Our next space station needs to get its tethers anchored into the
ultimate CM(counter mass) of 7.35e22 kg that's parallel parked at
Earth's L1.

As a perfectly viable compromise to Earth going entirely w/o moon; Have
I got a nifty L1 shade for accommodating our next ISS and otherwise for
the best ever salvation of Earth's environment:

Relocating our moon represents another win-win for the old gipper, and
it's not even hocus-pocus or having to use smoke and mirrors. The
process of relocating our moon can start off extremely slow and build up
to whatever the task requires. This effort is all about eventually
shading mother Earth and fixing all sorts of pesky mascon and GW related
problems at the same time. I'm thinking the amount of this shade via L1
moon can even be somewhat adjusted by the fact that this massive item
should be a touch lagging behind, rather than dead on target, whereas
L4/L5 tethers should make this into an entirely interactive shade on
demand (sort of speak).

Primary CM(counter mass) of 7.35e22 kg, efficiently situated at Earth
L1.

Our Next Space Station = Earth L1 along with incorporating the
LSE-CM/ISS of fully utilizing our moon's L1 that's continually situated
in the protective shade of Earth's L1 moon, is potentially less global
spendy than 911/Iraq, but otherwise isn't all that far fetched.

Perhaps my previous topics or sub-topics of having imposed certain weird
notions and those pesky question(s), such as about our environment
having gone entirely naked w/o moon was asking a bit too much,
especially since Earth would eventually thereafter get extra cold, as
without sufficient tidal forces to motivate our molten core's thermal
interior of transferring 40 or perhaps 70 some odd TJ that might even
further degrade our failing magnetosphere, plus vast oceans of roughly
40,000 ~ 60,000 TJ of solar thermal energy that simply would not migrate
about as to nearly the present extent, whereas such we'd likely be
unavoidably icing up really good, while keeping sufficiently toasty and
thus frost and ice free within the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn, plus a
few aquatic areas getting somewhat extra algae bloom and/or dead-zone
stinky at the same time, all happening because of those reduced tidal
forced actions taking place.

There are damn few consequences to fear, as there would still be those
sufficiently sunny though less hot days here on Earth, along with having
a sol+moon forced tide, just not of one nearly as strong, and otherwise
accommodating only one such composite tide per day.

In addition to this method of having established a great deal of shade
(perhaps a touch more than necessary), we'd also have established the
absolute ideal TRACE, ACE and SOHO outpost or ultimate scientific mother
platform, as well as keeping the Chinese or possibly Russian LSE-CM/ISS
as 100% viable to boot (actually far better off because of the moon's L1
(MEL1/facing Earth) becoming so nicely shaded and obviously the moon
becomes near zilch worth of being reactive to the solar energy that's
passing by, so much so improved upon that even Bigalow's POOFs could be
safely utilized most anywhere along the tethers).

I'm asking; What's so terribly wrong, or even all that technically
insurmountable with my notions of relocating our very own cosmic morgue
of a mascon, as our nasty old salty and global warming moon is relocated
all the way out to Earth L1?

Utilizing the tethered mass at 2XL2 seems like a perfectly good
alternative to having applied those millions of spendy rockets (that we
obviously don't have nor could we actually apply towards accomplishing
such a daunting task) or via whatever nuclear produced delta-v,
especially since most every required tonne and of the moon's L2 delopyed
tether itself would be extracted from the moon.

This being where the truly smart folks get to shine like never before.
Where's all of your warm and fuzzy Usenet yaysay and of whatever
wizardly applied expertise of eye popping candy, and otherwise on behalf
of knocking our socks off is what actually counts, especially when our
badly failing environment and extremely frail DNA needs such applied
efforts the most?

Otherwise, what's actually all that negative or otherwise naysay about
relocating our moon, for obtaining such absolute spare loads of ice age
rebuilding shade, and of so much more to come?

Since we're still into losing our DNA/RNA protective magnetosphere at
the ongoing demise of 0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options
for protecting Earth's atmosphere and of our sequestered butts on this
badly polluted surface do we have at our disposal?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Relocating lunar mass via L2 deployed tether, as actually having placed
such mass far out past the moon's L2 point of no return seems like the
perfectly good way to go. Say for the effort of going way out there
using 2X L2, and to say we/robotics somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes
on the tippy end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the
moon's CG, a remote placement or rather displacement distance of roughly
129,400 km, whereas at least for starters may seem a touch daunting but
otherwise perfectly doable, and the pulling or tug affect obviously only
gets better as the moon gets moved away from Earth.

How much applied exit or delta-v force is that sort of remote placement
of such mass going to provide?

Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.

2X moon L2 = 129,400 km

129,400 / 384,400 = .33663

Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s

2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)

2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)

Centripetal/Centrifugal force: Fc=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf

If we're given a 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)

Moon's 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes

Earth/moon 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes

That's either as little as 93,481 applied tonnes of continuous force or
perhaps the combined total worth of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal
applied force that's worthy of accomplishing a little something in
delta-v, especially when applied over the time span of perhaps years, of
which I don't believe it'll actually take all that long, or even nearly
the suggested 1e12 kg placement of mass at the moon's 2XL2.

1 kgf = 9.80665 joules
4.6435e8 kg * 9.80665 = 4.554e9 joules

Our extremely unusual moon is being held to Earth by a mutual gravity
force of attraction that's equal to 2e20 joules.

2e20 / 4.554e9 = 4.392e10 : 1

This might actually be suggesting 4.392e10 seconds of having applied the
force of 4.6435e8 kg would eventually become equal to the 2e20 joules,
which seems perfectly worth doing since that moon is supposedly headed
out of town all on its own.

Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon 2XL2 as the CM package of 1e12
kg in tethered mass that's acting as a physical CM/tug upon getting that
nasty moon further away from Earth; How long will it take for that
process of getting rid of our moon (as ideally relocated to Earth L1
that is)?

Seems once having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually offering
a multi-tasking and do-everything sort of win-win for accomplishing all
sorts of future science and gateway of space exploration, and otherwise
offering direct primary benefit to having shaded our environment, and of
most everything else that I can think of seems better off. As for the
naysay or whatever negatives, at least thus far I have a list of zilch
to offer because, it even benefits my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy
its tether dipole element to within 4r of Earth, and there's lots more
to consider, especially on behalf of having improved the moon's L1 usage
by the human species, that is if you're one of the few that still have
that yaysay open mindset to work with.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:28ae8aea994ba37c1b01ed3d2ebd962a.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).

Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.

Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1
However Sol--Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol--L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)

However, since the moon is already keeping up with Earth is why there's
no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's having
to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become primarily
in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated L1
planetoid, as our solar shade instead of being a pesky moon.

In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.

BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon--planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.

If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd like to hear about
that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash upon
whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your having
to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was flat
and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based solitary
existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your conditional laws of
physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on behalf of supporting
those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by the status quo which
you must worship at all cost.

On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo gasket, then
perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has a
perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as non-caring job without
ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Sounds like a very intelligent idea. I was wondering though, what kind
of affect would the Moon's gravity have on the Earth at a closer
distance, besides a change in the tides. Could the Moon's gravity
against the Earth make the orbital relationship a little more two-
sided, as in both objects orbiting eachother (a little)?

You're math is a little too advanced for me to understand, but it
seems like moving the Moon closer might have some effect on the orbit
of the EARTH on the MOON. I could be totally wrong. :P

"Z 1 Y 0 N 3 X" wrote in message
oups.com

Sounds like a very intelligent idea. I was wondering though, what kind
of affect would the Moon's gravity have on the Earth at a closer
distance, besides a change in the tides. Could the Moon's gravity
against the Earth make the orbital relationship a little more two-
sided, as in both objects orbiting eachother (a little)?

Closer than it's curently doing us would obviously be much worse off for
global warming, as forced along by the mascon's tidal energy transfer.
For example, at half the distance, I tend to believe that we'd be
dealing with at least 4 times the tidal energy that's applied inside and
out. However, the required orbital velocity being greater is what makes
the applied energy that much worse off by at least another 4 fold,
therefore we might conceivably end up with having to fend off 16 times
the tidal energy affect if that moon was making 2.046 km/s while at
merely 192,200 km, in which case there likely wouldn't be any snow or
ice on Earth.

As for "orbiting eachother (a little)" seems pretty much the norm as to
what's currently the situation. Even if the moon was relocated to
Earth's L1, this would not have entirely eliminated the influence of its
gravity.

You're math is a little too advanced for me to understand, but it
seems like moving the Moon closer might have some effect on the orbit
of the EARTH on the MOON. I could be totally wrong. :P

I believe you are totally wrong, though not about affecting the orbit of
Earth. I would have to expect having our moon relocated into the sweet
spot of Earth's L1 would tend to attract the two of us towards the sun,
of which that's sort of the unfortunate down side of my master plan for
saving us from ourselves. However, the small reduction in our moon's
orbital velocity in relation to the sun might actually get transferred
into moving the two of us a bit further away from the sun. At this
point, I'm not exactly certain what would happen.

Fortunately, we have all of the necessary supercomputers in order to run
all of this through many times, for accomplishing those similated test
runs. Why don't you and others start asking why they haven't done so.

I believe the most obvious fundamental point that you're missing is that
Earth's L1 is not closer, but roughly 4 fold the distance of what our
moon is currently orbiting us. Therefore, I'm only talking about moving
that nasty moon of our much further away, not closer.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:28ae8aea994ba37c1b01ed3d2ebd962a.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

As of lately, the Usenet MIB borg collective of MI/NSA spooks and moles
are certainly working their hardest at trying to terminate my poor old
PC. Gee whiz, I can't but wonder why I'm worth all that much trouble,
that is unless it's because I'm the village idiot or the worse possible
messenger from hell that's sharing too much of the truth and nothing but
the truth.

Perhaps all the ongoing topic banishments or incoming naysay topic flak
is all because of our 100,000 some odd +/- year or +/- multi-century
encounters with the Sirius star/solar system, that which had been of
more frequent orbital encounters throughout each of our multiple ice age
cycle past, whereas of just somewhat lately we've had that pesky moon of
our's to deal with as of the last ice age this planet will ever see.
Take away our moon and Earth gets cold. Relocate our moon at Earth's L1
and we extensively cool off mother Earth in spite of whatever we've
managed to do to our frail environment (perhaps creating a touch too
much shade, which is still better off than not having enough shade).

Remember that nothing is in willy-nilly mode of just coasting through
space with no apparent association to any other mass. Our wussy little
solar system is unavoidably associated with the more than sufficiently
nearby, truly massive and otherwise super powerful Sirius star/solar
system, including that of its vast Oort cloud of moon sized debris, if
not somewhat larger and most likely icy items.

I'd gladly share other news you can use, except unfortunately it seems
ESAs Venus EXPRESS mission is no longer alive, as sadly MI/NSA~NASA has
pretty much nailed their science coffins shut. Having thus far excluded
their robust PFS instrument from sharing in the geothermal truth about
Venus, is actually mainstream's faith-based status quo doing exactly
what they do best. However, if push comes down to shove, we don't have
to believe their every word, nor do we have to take their damage control
ultimatums as though being the word of God.

As geothermally heated from that active core on up, and thereby as
humanly nasty as Venus is, it still has our polluted and energy raped
Earth beat by a long shot at offering hundreds of fold more locally
available energy/m2, that's actually environmentally clean (soot free as
well as near zero NOx, and of this taking of energy is even free of
producing any artificial CO2), otherwise Venus energy is perfectly
renewable to boot.

Unfortunately, the relatively newish planetology and geothermally active
nature of Venus is still intellectually as well as scientifically and
especially faith based off-limits, as remaining sequestered in official
taboo/nondisclosure mode, where it's having to remain as stealth as were
all of those Muslim or Islamic WMD. In other words, science and even
physics simply can not share the truth about Venus, out of fear of their
careers getting terminated, if not worse.

JFK had honestly attempted to put a stop to such Skull and Bones cult
like authority, which only got himself terminated in a very personal and
lethal way. Here's that JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of
the Press http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlEqtaWpKEU.

In spite of all the big-energy and government orchestrated flak, I
happen to totally agree with the intent of honest renewable energy
topics, of promoting as much as possible "Solar, not nuclear", in that a
composite of solar PV, stirling and wind turbine per energy tower can in
fact deliver a clean and perfectly safe footprint of energy density
that's worth 37.5 kw/m2 (37.5 kjhr/m2), that's likely to advance to the
50 kw/m2 level in the near future. Along with a national power grid
infrastructure, the areas best suited for this form of renewable energy
extraction can pick up as much as 75% of our future needs, along with
15% hydroelectric, 10% nuclear (meaning near zero coal and oil).
Nations without hydroelectric or nuclear potential would obviously have
to make due with supplementing LNG and perhaps h2o2 in order to obtain
their maximum benefit with the least pollution from whatever fossil or
biofuel alternatives.

However, the nuclear alternatives at perhaps their best all-inclusive
birth to grave 375 whr/m2 or 375 jhr/m2 are not going down without a
tough and bloody as hell fight, to each of our mutually polluted and GW
deaths if need be. I also agree that perhaps the best this global
energy shortage fiasco can mange is for going along with our utilizing
nuclear alternatives for the relatively safely (far better off than coal
and oil) methods of accomplishing 10% of our global energy needs. So,
I'm not and never have been your Mr. Anti-Nuclear. After all, there are
more than a few nations of less than heathen status that probably can't
be fully entrusted with nuclear energy, but if we keep making coal and
oil spendy or otherwise unavailable, the only viable alternative may
come down to WW-III.

BTW; for this and most any other topic argument sake, the laws of
energy still represents that 3600 joules = 3600 whr = 1 kw or 1 kwhr or
1 kjhr because, a jhr is still worth 3600 joules. There's nothing
hocus-pocus about it, other than it's the truth and nothing but the
truth, which in modern times of big-energy polluting, pillaging and
raping mother Earth to death obviously doesn't count for squat.

These Usenet big-energy folks that are the best at infomercial spewing
and for usually being directly or indirectly industry paid-for as
naysayers against all that's renewable and clean, are into playing their
silly word or syntax games, thereby avoiding the honest intent or jest
of the original topic, and thus focused upon stalking and trashing
whomever and of whatever the pro green/renewables of constructive
contributions have to share, treated as though we're their big-energy
approved toilet-paper.

BTW No.2; Global Warming is for real, and it's real in more ways than
one. At least we can honestly say that it's partially (10%~25%) caused
by humanity, and that there are direct and indirect environmental
consequences of our past, present and future actions. However, because
of the vast amount of required energy, the continued thawing of Earth
since the last ice age this planet will ever see, is not entirely our
fault.

Rather oddly, but not hardly a surprise if going by these extra special
infomercial days of promoting all that's pro big-energy and of having to
protect their puppet government(s) mainstream status quo butt, plus
seeing those usual cover thy butt-loads of faith based damage control on
steroids, whereas this following topic of perfectly honest science seems
as though rather Mailgate/Usenet taboo/nondisclosure rated, therefore it
must be offering us too much of the truth and nothing but the truth.

Mailgate/Usenet indext listed as; Message not available:
"Temperature on global warming turned up" / by William Elliot

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...4e1a7a3d8636ec

The regular laws of physics and I'm strongly suggesting that as much as
90% of our inside and out GW fiasco is derived from our recently
obtained moon, which isn't discounting the 10% impact as caused by
humanity (at best I'd buy into a 75%/25% ratio). In other words, if we
all departed this Earth and let nature and the laws of physics take its
planetology course, this Earth would continue to thaw from the last ice
age this planet will ever see. As long as we have that pesky moon of
ours, ice age trapped methanes and CO2 will in fact keep "Bubbling
Through Seafloor Creates Undersea Hills", though at a reduced rate if
the human factor were entirely eliminated.
http://www.mbari.org/news/news_relea...aull-plfs.html
You folks do realize that Earth isn't getting itself any bigger, whereas
if anything it's ever so gradually shrinking, exactly as it should.
Imagine that, I've shared yet another truth as being told that we're not
supposed to know about, just like we're not supposed to realize that our
magnetosphere has been losing its worth at 0.05%/year.

Clearly our nifty orbiting mascon/moon is in fact so 'one of a kind'
unusually massive and nearby, so much so extra special that as such it
can't but help to transfer and thereby induce an amount of thermal
energy into our environment by way of tidal forces (inside and out),
plus whatever's unavoidably contributed from all of those reflected and
secondary worth of IR/FIR photons that have little if any trouble
getting through to the surface that getting a little extra sooty and
otherwise polluted by the day, which includes less snow and ice coverage
that means upon average a lower global albedo, that in turn represents
an even better sol and moon energy absorber that in turn keeps our
nighttime atmosphere more cloud covered due to the increased levels of
h2o in our atmosphere.

This following topic link is still a tough mainstream nut to crack, much
less sell, as it's representing a serious load of perfectly weird
notions based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, that's having
to do with our creating a surplus of shade for Earth, by way of
relocating our moon to Earth's L1. (easier said than done)

Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1

http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...=smart&p=1/211

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...990d88e00958f4

Earth's L1 for accommodating something of the robust mass of our moon,
that also has the LSE-CM/ISS of 256e6 tonnes of our interplanetary
gateway to deal with, is essentially a planetoid parallel parking zone
that's roughly 4 fold further away than its current 384,400 km orbital
status, thus 1.5376e6 km representing 1/16th the mutual attracting or
holding force of gravity, as well as having cut the amount of tidal
energy that's getting applied back into Earth's environment should be of
a similar reduction. However, once fully aligned with the sun while
parked within this halo orbit of Earth's L1 should actually not allow
that combined sol+moon tidal energy to at most drop to half of
whatever's currently taking place. I haven't fully polished off the
physics math in order to prove all of this, but I do believe it'll end
up being somewhere between this third amount less and perhaps half of
what tides we're currently dealing with, which is actually quite a
significant reduction in tidal energy transfer, that by rights should
also tend to cool off our terrestrial environment (inside and out).

Of course the 24 hour rotation of Earth in relationship to Earth's L1 is
no longer the same as our moon's existing 1.023 km/s. In one weird
sense we'd have to speed that moon of our's up to 112 km/s, which is
actually worth 6e23 joules, and that's seemingly going to be a tough
notion to accomplish because, it's existing 1.023 km/s of 2e20
centripetal joules worth of orbital energy is clearly insufficient for
that of L1, of which can't exactly be derived out of thin air unless
having been continually pulled along and subsequently established by a
sufficient other centripetal force, for getting our moon out to Earth's
L1 in the first place.

Here's some more of this weird math, suggesting as to what it'll take.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth--L1
However Sol--Earth L1 is what takes that centripetal energy back
-5.996e23 joules Sol--L1 = 0.0 joules (near zero G)

However, since our moon is already keeping up with Earth is also why
there's no real delta-v increase in its orbital velocity. In fact, it's
having to slightly reduce its average orbital velocity that'll become
primarily in relationship to Sol, as having become our binary associated
L1 planetoid, representing our solar shade instead of being such a pesky
moon that's causing us all sorts of grief.

In spite of all the usual status quo flak of Usenet's anti-think-tank
and naysayism that's typically of a faith based mindset, of borg like
individuals going postal in order to keep each and every one of their
infomercial lids on tight, whereas giving Earth some badly needed shade
while improving upon the usage of our moon's L1, at the very same time
as having moderated those global warming tidal forces by at least a
third, is what's actually quite doable in spite of whatever their
all-knowing god has to say.

BTW; my LSE-CM/ISS or at the very least a scientific (Earth facing)
tethered science platform or space depot may likely become another
requirement, that is unless having a slightly rotating L1 planetoid
isn't a problem. However, any possible rotation may remain as nullified
since the moon's original L2 tethered mass of 1e12 kg will likely still
exist at some reduced amount of mass, now modified as per acting on
behalf of representing the planetoids's (Sol facing) L1 tethered science
platform(s). In spite of my best dyslexic encrypted efforts, this
moon--planetoid thing is certainly damn confusing, isn't it.

If you have similar or obviously better math, I'd certainly like to hear
about that. However, if you only wish to topic/author stalk and bash
upon whatever in order to continually whine about the matter of your
having to keep everything exactly as it was, such as when your Earth was
flat and everything else was still in orbit around your faith-based
solitary existence, then don't bother. The same goes if your
conditional laws of physics only applies to terrestrial matters, or on
behalf of supporting those matters orchestrated by and thus approved by
the status quo which you must worship at all cost.

On the other honest topic constructive hand, even if your subjective
interpretations and subsequent ideas or whatever best swag is way off in
another dimension, it's not going to be all that upsetting to my kind of
open mindset way of thinking, that's more often outside the box than not
to start with. If you simply can not manage to safely think for
yourself without blowing yet another mainstream status quo or whatever
faith based gasket, then perhaps not all is lost when our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) has a perfectly good paying, non-thinking as well as
non-caring job without ever involving a speck of remorse, for you and
others of your kind.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Instead of our wasting notions, precious time and scant energy resources
terraforming our moon as is, which is technically doable (especially
from the LSE-CM/ISS perspective of what China could easily accomplish on
our behalf), whereas we could simply relocate that sucker to Earth L1,
and thereby call our global warming fiasco to a freaking halt once and
for all, along with having created shade to burn (sort of speak).

We'd obviously give up having such a downright reactive pesky mascon of
a moon that's a little too massive and too darn close for our own good,
and instead we'd have for ourselves a nifty planetoid that's efficiently
cruising within Earth's L1, that is unless we decide otherwise.

This 7.35e22 kg planetoid of 3476 km diameter would also help block or
fend off a few of those nasty halo CMEs that are getting more frequent
and more lethal as our ongoing demise of our magnetosphere continues to
fail us and that of our frail DNA at -0.05%/year.

Best of all, our good old once upon a time moon of having shared such
warm and fuzzy amounts of global warming tidal forced energy, would
still be within easy range of our fly-by-rocket access that'll soon
enough become a proven technology, as well as everything mission related
made a whole lot safer for walking on that full earthshine illuminated
deck of what's physically chuck full of dark and nasty cosmic and a few
otherwise invaluable solar substances (such as He3), though still a
touch salty and otherwise extremely electrostatic dusty (tens of meters
deep in places), and yet the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element could
still be allowed to reach if need be to within 4r of Earth. The 256e6
tonne and 1e9 m3 CM/ISS as our do-everything gateway abode/depot itself
is certainly much better off, and of the anchor tethers would have
become POOF suitable as for accommodating whomever is seriously rich and
hasn't all that much quality time to live anyway.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:998ffd8bc5bb9356919df0112ffb83a8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

What's wrong with blocking off roughly 3.5% of our sun, as well as
having gotten rid of most of the 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 getting that horrific orb of gamma
and hard-X-rays a little further away from us?

At four times the distance, we'd have roughly 1/16th of that lethal
dosage to deal with, and due to such having accomplished nearly zilch
worth of centripetal related force is why we'd have accomplished a mere
fraction of that 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
reaching to within 4r of Earth) is still perfectly doable, and actually
much better off for such being within the shade of that moon, and
otherwise full-earthshine illuminated 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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Besides all of my previous notions of terraforming our moon (instead of
Mars), there's also a terrific argument as to the absolutely great deal
of clean energy that's existing/coexisting between Earth and that of our
pesky GW moon, that which rather badly needs to get relocated to Earth's
L1 before there's not hardly a km3 worth of ice left on Earth to spare.

Secondly, moving our moon out into Earth's L1 also makes that otherwise
nasty moon of our's into a rather nifty little 3.5% dot of shade for
mother Earth, as well as offering a seriously cool earthshine
illuminated environment of representing a perfectly worthy
outpost/depot/(gateway via the LSE-CM/ISS) that's obviously representing
a whole lot less of IR/FIR trauma, as well as being less DNA lethal,
though otherwise naked and thus exposed to whatever's cosmic and/or
physical that's coming along at whatever hellacious velocity.

Once our moon is relocated into Earth's L1 sweet spot, the moon itself
could become our do everything gateway, as offering a safe outpost/depot
that'll have to remain as mostly sequested underground, although the
LSE-CM/ISS along with its tether diople element reaching to within 4r of
Earth is still offering the best of any applied space exploration
assisting technology game in town, that is as long as you speak good
Mandarin.

Since that moon of our's may in fact not have a viable magnetosphere
(likely because it's w/o iron core, as a semi-hallow geode like orb or
at best offering a salty brine of a core), thus holding onto any
significant atmosphere of CO2 or heavier elements isn't exactly going to
be as easy as you'd think.

There's 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the mutual
attraction of gravity is worth 6.307e27 joules/yr (1.752e21 kwhrs).

As long as our physically dark and nasty moon (that's unavoidably global
warming us to death) is in the process of losing mass, and there's
sufficient secondary tidal forces at play, it'll never again impact
Earth. If that sucker ever manages to gain mass (such as from
accommodating NEOs getting litho terminated or the likes of being
penetration impacted by Sedna) is when we'll have to put those hard
thinking yarmulkes back on.

It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about at taxpayer and consumer expense, and mainstream flaunted at the
drop of a yarmulke, such as carried onboard our spendy good ship USS
LOLLIPOP, which apparently has butt-loads more of their infomercial
crapolla as damage-control flak to share. Otherwise, lord knows there's
damn little if any topic constructive feedback unless accommodating an
ulterior motive or hidden agenda.

Starlord:
They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
metal ores.
Is that the reason why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded
down with such complex mascon issues?

Excuse please; Whom the heck is "they", and why should we believe such
remote science as provided by such faith-based and/or politically agenda
formulated individuals, that clearly owe their brown nosed loyalty to
whomever is in charge of their private parts?

Terrestrial identified moon rocks do not seem of low denisity, or didn't
you silly folks know that?

Starlord:
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far
across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the
forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some
believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to
survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.

I simply believe that other life similar or entirely different from
whatever we know of, should by all the known laws of physics and of
other biological rights of pure random happenstance or via intelligent
design exist/coexist elsewhere within this vast universe (possibly even
within our solar system), and of whatever's intelligent enough to have
made space travel safely doable should also be wise enough for giving
our badly polluted Earth a wide buffer DMZ because of our inbread
arrogance, greed and bigotry that has time and again demonstrated as
having practically if not absolutely no remorse whatsoever.

Even though there could have been a far better science transponder
alternative than those terribly small passive areas of retroreflectors,
or that of whatever impact deployed reflective material, whereas until
better interactive range finding science is made available to the
extremely electrostatic dusty surface of our moon, I'd have to accept
the best available science of others, as having established that our
moon is currently leaving town at the rate of 38 mm/yr.

For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from having delivered
such a glancing sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with,
whereas it seems this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin
forming encounter required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose
or rather transfer a good deal of its original mass in the initial
impact process, and then continually having to lose other mass (such as
whatever remaining ice), and then ever since having lost a sufficient
tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be leaving us at the supposed recession
rate of 38 mm/year.

If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the unavoidable friction of terminal velocity
and mutual gravity of attraction, whereas instead of losing our moon by
38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some future date.

As it is, that moon of our's is continually in the process of losing
mostly the raw element of sodium, but w/o a protective magnetosphere is
why there's also a few other elements that are getting boiled, vacuum
sucked out and continually excavated away by the solar wind.

Here's some more of my (corrected) weird/dyslexic math:
I'm certain it's a whole lot more complex than this, such as if one
meter per year as having moved our 7.35e22 kg moon were taken to
represent 1.165e15 joules, whereas I do believe the combined effect of
tidal forces and of the ongoing loss of mass that's resulting in the 38
mm/yr recession, as reverse extrapolated from the value of KE=.5MV2 can
thereby be taken as per applied kgf/yr = 171.62e9 (171.6 megatonnes), or
of that same force were otherwise applied into kinetic energy as worth
1.683e12 joules/yr, by which if that amount were taken in addition to
the ongoing 2e20 joules of centripetal energy that's offsetting the
mutual attraction of gravity, as that's worth 6.307e27 joules/yr
(1.752e21 kwhrs). Seems as though the 38 mm recession is worth far less
than a mere pico-drop in the old bucket.

So, perhaps it's not going to be nearly as energy intensive as we'd
thought for relocating our moon to Earth's L1, especially once having
doubled the distance should have greatly reduced the mutual gravity of
attraction by a good 1/4. Too bad we're either not smart enough or
there's not so much as one qualified supercomputer that's offering a
simulator of such orbital mechanics, that can draft and thereby animate
this one out for us. I guess all of those publicly paid for
supercomputers are simply too busy at downloading live smut or animating
yet another eye-popping movie for our entertainment.

Perhaps once again, I'll have to say that it's rather unfortunate that
we're not quite smart enough, such as for our not having established an
efficient station-keeping science platform as of the mid 60s, as
situated within the moon's L1 zone, whereas we'd certainly have obtained
a great deal more replicated knowledge about our unusually massive and
nearby moon, and I do believe loads more learned about Earth science,
that is if we only had half a village idiot's brain instead of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war mindset (a terribly spendy and time
consuming real life cloak and dagger reality game called "Up Yours" that
has only cost us trillions per decade and damn near brought us into
WW-III, w/o sufficient energy reserves to boot).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e0b8c94fd59e57c6760e7cde1a5f2e0d.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

The mineral or raw element of sodium, as vaporised salts or metallic
element(s) including sodium or whatever's acceptable to your mindset,
whereas it's simply about the raw mass of such lunar terra derived
sodium and/or of whatever else that's capable of leaving our moon by the
tonnes per hour, if not at times per minute that matters. With our
establishing even a slight but likely toxic atmosphere, perhaps that
rate of element loss would become minimal, especially nifty if that
artificial atmosphere were getting created as from the process of
extracting He3, or for our going after extracting all of that 90% proof
yellowcake.

If any of you wise folks are supposedly so gosh darn 'wizard of Oz'
certified as all-knowing smart, please do share a few hard numbers, as
to your best swag upon whatever is the average sodium loss per day?

If we managed to create and sustain the production of an artificial
atmosphere of humanly sufficient O2; how long would that element stick
around (especially on the 100% nighttime/earthshine side of that moon as
parked within the Earth L1 pocket?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG