|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org What! still no Bigelow POOF for this cool application? Where's all the 'can do' of Usenet spunk, of accomplishing such a nifty task, especially once our moon is situated in Earth's L1 on behalf of more than sufficienly shading our environmentally trashed and polluted mother Earth. However, by the time this daunting task of relocating 7.35e22 km gets accomplished, it's just as likely that we'll be in serious need of all 3.5% worth of solar isolation, if not a touch more shade for good terrestrial pollution measure. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:11ebcd15a5c4f453d2b80ef55874b85e.49644@mygate .mailgate.org This somewhat polished contribution is indirectly related to that of utilizing our moon as the ultimate LSE-CM/ISS anchor, as well as for that moon blocking out a small portion of our sun, for understanding the ongoing energy that's between Earth and our moon, and subsequently helping us to appreciate as to how cold this Earth would get once our moon was situated out of the way, or at least as for having been relocated out to Earth's L1 for safe keeping, and for otherwise accomplishing a double benefit. In other words, I for one do not believe this daunting relocation phase is going to demand all that much applied energy (most of which would be derived from the moon itself), especially if it's currently moving out at 38 mm/year as is. Whereas there should be a spare supercomputer or two that's accomplishing damn little if anything constructive for the moment, that which can run this one through whatever spendy 3D animated production, as to our seeing where such things might run a little off track. mailgate/sci.astro / Will the Moon Crash Into Earth? stealth listed topic: "Mailgate: Message not available" "Peter Webb" wrote in message u http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...d6f253d352fdaf Will the Moon Crash Into Earth? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...8810ced9d201fe Actually, as it moves into higher orbits, its velocity decreases. What exactly are those hard scientific numbers (not via theory), as having been independently measured down to the picosecond, about its receding orbital loss of velocity per year? It seems as though it would have been so much easier and otherwise having been far more accurate as to our having measured any such annual reduction in orbital velocity per year, than of having measured it's supposed 38 mm/year of tidal forced recession. I mean to further suggest, that it's apparently having to travel a bit further each year, and according those of your mindset it's also taking some loss in orbital velocity to boot, or perhaps it actually isn't doing either, if not otherwise falling back towards Earth because of having 'once upon a time' bounced itself off Earth to begin with. In addition to all of that rant; What's the ongoing slug factor (Vt/terminal velocity drag coefficient) in kgf that's working against that extremely rough (40e12 m2) moon of ours? You'd think that such a nifty 900,000 km comet like trail of what's mostly solar wind forced sodium is capable of giving us a clue as to the Vt/slug factor. The paragraph above - and all the rest I have snipped below - both somewhat cranky and wrong, at least as an explanation of the recession of the moon. Sorry about all of that. For good reason(s), I am in fact somewhat cranky, as having been so ever since interpreting that somehow Venus has been accommodating other intelligent life, as having been existing/coexisting where it's supposedly so freaking hot and nasty. In other words, instead of your being the least bit cranky, whereas you're cozy with being snookered and thus easily dumbfounded that you actually believe we've walked upon that nasty moon of our's, even though there's no such replicated evidence that actually proves NASA/Apollo moon-walking squat, at least not as based upon those pesky regular laws of physics. You also don't believe that our moon is still in the process of losing mass, or much less that it's seemingly losing substantial amounts of sodium (I've estimated roughly 23.5 micrograms/m2/day), as otherwise you would have given or having shared specific information that proves otherwise. I haven't entirely excluded tidal forces, but yourself and others of your kind have always excluded whatever rocks your Old Testament thumping (Earth/moon only) boat, as though we're it and there's none others to behold within this entire universe that's existing/coexisting as intelligent life, much less having managed nearly as good at it as us. What makes you folks think we even originated or subsequently belong upon this planet that has become almost insufficient for sustaining our species, that is unless you've got the biggest and nastiest gun in town, as well as having no remorse about using it. - BTW; the thrust of a given rocket is in fact based upon the sudden removal of mass that's going away from the original mass, the same as to what's happening at an extremely slow pace with our moon that's losing mass while moving itself away from Earth. Yet as far as we know of, its orbital velocity simply isn't slowing down enough, if at all. So, what gives? I have no actual idea, outside of my best swag, as to the ongoing exit velocity of my suggested 940 tonnes/day worth of sodium. So, for now I'm sticking with the wussy exit velocity of one meter/second. Ovbiously if it were exiting at 10 m/s would require 1% the sodium mass as per what my best swag had previously suggested, and less yet due to whatever amount of secondary tidal force is at play. - According to my dyslexic encrypted math (that's not always correct); If that moon of ours was in fact moving off by 38 mm/year, and as such not even slowing down one iota, whereas per year as based upon 1.023 km/s, it should be taking 2.334e-4 second longer for getting that horrifically big old and massive sucker around us. Obviously if your tidal forced analogy were all inclusive, as to representing what's causing our moon's recession at the velocity losing budget of whatever that amounts to, along with taking into account whatever's the Vt/slug factor, whereas it should if anything be causing the orbital velocity as having been somewhat diminished measurably from the velocity of each previous year. Therefore, if anything the extra amount of orbital time required by rights should have become much greater than imposing the fixed velocity factor of taking 2.334e-4 second longer to get around Earth. Besides all my usual spelling and syntax corrections, how am I doing? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
What's this I hear about moving our moon out to Earth's L1?
NOTHING AT ALL Is Usenet's superior brain of all-knowing expertise broken? Are those MI/NSA clowns without a good enough clown car, all because they can't afford the gas? Are those MIB clowns of enforcing infomercials and hypology down to having to utilize bicycles? - Brad Guth |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
In case you're wondering, I do believe that relocating our moon to
Earth's L1 is a bit on the wild side, though given sufficient time and utilizing the moon's own 2XL2 or possibly 3XL2 with as much tethered mass of its own as possible, should accomplish most of that task. Actually, a far more doable outpost or space depot/gateway than my LSE- CM/ISS might be Venus L2, at merely 1,014,290 km from Venus, and thereby always in the shade to the extent of keeping the solar influx down to something less than 400 w/m2 (possibly as low as 350 w/m2), with the interactive halo orbit able to +/- whatever degree of solar isolation is necessary for a given task. The one really neat thing about VL2 is that a tethered camera or whatever cache of science instruments can be efficiently lowered towards the nighttime season of Venus. If we installed a 1.1e6 km spool of tether, and having deployed such directly towards Venus, including the matter of our station of POOFs having to back off a bit more from VL2, we'd have gotten those instruments just above the very tops of those fast moving acidic clouds. Of course the crew change per 19 month mission is going to push a good many of those 'do not push' buttons, and the to/from commute is still going to be somewhat humanly testy, though not 10% that of any Mars fiasco. How about some composite rigid airship/shuttle expertise, or is that too much to ask of this Usenet of mostly naysayers? At one time "tomcat" seemed perfectly airship or fat-waverider R&D capable, at least up until the point when those MIB took him away. - Brad Guth |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Good grief folks, here's the best ever solar isolation and next
generation space depot and/or nifty gateway alternative in our badly polluted and GW town, by simply moving our pesky moon out to Earth L1. That's nothing but a perfectly solid win-win for the old mother Earth gipper, and then some, as we could then continue to summarily pillage, plunder, rape and pollute whatever's left of mother Earth until long after those NASA/Apollo cows come home, including our having to survive WWIII and WWIV, with still enough shade to burn (sort of speak). - Brad Guth |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Without our moon, over sufficient time Earth would soon enough become
a Mars like orb. However, the notions of relocating our moon out to Earth's L1 might become exactly what our GW doctor and the rest of us village idiot minions could possibly hope for. Too bad such an honest topic is so Usenet taboo/nondisclosure worthy, much like VL2 and even that of our moon's L1. Of course, with any luck we could eventually make the perpetual nighttime of our relocated moon into our next best home away from home. Planetology science is absolutely essential, especially if such is related to Earth, as well as is cosmological research and subsequent understandings that by all rights also has to involve our evolution and/or having accommodated whatever intelligent design of having created our complex DNA/RNA in the first place, that is unless it turns out that hundreds of billions of random happenstance years are actually the case. Yet lo and behold, we have to continually put up with the likes of topic/author stalking, hijackings and bashings from those rejecting all of whatever's off-world, or simply intent upon banishing all of whatever rocks their faith-based or political good ship LOLLIPOP. Of course, some folks simply can't get enough of their own incest cultivated arrogance, greed, bigotry and stupidity, much like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush). Earth has been more than a rare planet, whereas it's unusually fluid (inside and out), along with a mostly wet surface and otherwise frozen polar caps and other volumes of ice that if melted would summarily drown or otherwise terminate most of us, and as of lately it has been more than a little salty to boot, plus going GW(global warming) postal at the same time that we're trying our level best to survive on this orb. The basic argument here is that Earth simply didn't always have that pesky moon until after the very last ice age this planet w/moon will ever see, as for that pesky moon representing such a horrific nearby orbiting mascon, especially weird if that sucker were ever once upon a time orbiting at a forth the distance, thus having been contributing 16 fold greater gravity/tidal forces into our 98.5% fluid Earth, as that unfortunate outcome would have kept mother Earth more than a little extra GW hot! hot!! hot!!! I tend to favor a lithobraking arrival, via a glancing and thus seasonal tilt worthy blow, which seems a whole lot more likely. As otherwise, that alternative of a gradual exit migration away from Earth would have been worthy of a whole lot more geophysical trauma than previously given credit. Solar tides always existed, along with eventually some oceans of whatever less salty muck and of much less fluid volume had also existed, as well as for our elliptical orbit and less seasonal tilt having existed. So what? We can certainly have all of that w/o moon. There may not be those local ice cubes surviving in 1AU space, but much further out it's quite another cosmic story, especially if one of those arriving ice cubes had a fairly terrific 7.35e22 kg worth of a rocky core to start off with. Although it would have been darn nice having a few direct interactive science instruments on deck (which should have been easily accomplished if we'd actually walked on that sucker), though otherwise the best available remote science of our physically DARK and NASTY moon is more than good enough to suggest upon multiple other reasons for Earth (being 98.5% fluid) having obtained that absolutely horrific mascon of a moon, and only as of the very last ice age this gravity/ tidal forced global warming of a mostly fluid planet will ever see. Most folks here in Usenet naysay land, that are summarily stuck forever with their one and only NASA/Apollo koran version of the truth, are as such entirely unable to even consider upon any other viable alternatives. That's rather unfortunate that so much of otherwise good talent and resources must be continually wasted, along with such spendy decades upon decades blown for good. Much of our salty old moon's surface has in fact become soft, though obviously much of that moon's dusty surface is protruded by basalt, it has obviously since been terribly impacted and/or having collected everything including the cosmic kitchen sink. In addition to it's significant worth of gravity, it's also highly electrostatic charged and thus far better off at having attracted and otherwise retained most of the solar and cosmic flak that comes along, as certainly a whole lot better off at keeping its nasty stuff than anything our wussy magnetosphere manages to retain. Unfortunately, icy proto-moons are still being officially topic/author banished, as being as taboo/nondisclosure as is the truth about Iraq and a good dozen other matters. Even a simple topic of "What if (Craters)" by G=EMC^2 Glazier gets the usual mainstream status quo flak treatment, as a insurmountable gauntlet that's contributed by those Old Testament fools trying their faith-based level best at keeping the rest of us village idiots as snookered and/or as dumbfounded as possible, and for the most part it has been working. Folks here in this well orchestrated anti-think-tank Usenet of naysay land, as such really haven't allowed us to seriously look at those moon craters with any open mindset, whereas most of which are truly massive yet unusually shallow craters within those larger and even shallower craters, with much less their ever having associated any potential of ice as having once upon a time covered that big old salty sucker (I'm thinking to the tune of 262 km). Of the most recent craters being 10 fold deeper by ratio to their diameter means there was at that more recent time little if any ice on deck. Though I'd have to agree that a great amount of common moon dust by way of primary and secondary impact shards, plus local and cosmic dust has contributed to filling in the vast majority of those older craters, to the tune of such nasty composition being tens of meters deep in the most fluffy of dry and uncompacted dark/sooty (aka coal pit) looking stuff you can imagine. I often think of our moon as being a cosmic morgue, especially since nothing gets burned up prior to impact. You folks must realize that Sedna is a worthy icy proto-moon of roughly 1500~1800 km, that's likely covered by as much as 500 km of that dirty reddish and most likely salty ice. In fact, most anything Oort cloud or even Kuiper belt worthy is going to be and/or shortly become icy. For example, I can imagine the big rock and/or whatever's the core of such a hard under-surface of Sedna being that of almost no craters, as due to itself having been so nicely ice protected. For benefit of further argument; If such an icy proto-moon were moving along from Sirius to Sol, say if that interstellar trek had been taking at most a few tens of thousands of years (say incoming at 40 km/s and thereby lots of spare time for a little interactive cosmic DNA sequencing to take place), I wonder how much extra ice and snow build-up (in addition to whatever it originally had) one might expect to obtain while exiting away from the read-giant pushing realm of Sirius and obviously entering through our icy Oort cloud? You'd think this kind of fundamental planetology and cosmology research, as based entirely upon the regular laws of physics and best available science, would become another one of those nifty 3D simulation applications for a good supercomputer, don't you think. Especially since most other moons and perhaps even a few planets of this solar system seem as though having arrived after the initial creation of our Sol and whatever local planets. In fact, there's no good reasoning to perceive that Earth was born of the very same exact stuff as Sol. - Brad Guth |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
It's all about sustaining and/or improving the quality of life.
The best I can accomplish thus far, is coming up the new and improved sun + (moon at Earth L1) as becoming worth 50.4% of our existing lunar tide. A 50% reduction in tidal action is perhaps a little less important to ocean and other terrestrial life than we've been giving it credit. Most tidal life can adapt, some of which getting by with a little of our best intelligent design as help wherever necessary. This moon relocation process of getting that mascon situated out to Earth's L1 (roughly 4X further away than it's current orbital trek) is going to take a good century or more, and therefore I'm not imposing an overnight change to whatever terrestrial life that we know of that's attached its life endurance to that existing lunar cycle and ocean tidal issues. There will be some unfortunate extinctions of life which simply can not adapt, though hopefully humanity will not become one of those. However, at the very same time, other existing species that are currently finding it downright difficult or nearly impossible to survive as is, as such will likely bloom or otherwise better populate under the conditions of having less terrestrial trauma to deal with. A measured reduction in global warming (in good part due to the solar isolation afforded by the moon itself), along with accomplishing much less gravity/tidal trauma taking place (inside and out), is what should by rights benefit most all known species of life on Earth (hopefully just short of bringing on another ice age). What we need for this daunting task is that spendy supercomputer running all of its parallel CPUs off the charts, doing exactly whatever's necessary for figuring out what's doable, and otherwise telling us whatever else needs to be avoided at all cost. If you have such supercomputer access, and wouldn't terribly mind running off a few of these weird ideas, as such I'd like to see a few what-if results in 3D animation. - Brad Guth |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
It's all about sustaining and/or improving the quality of life. If
that motive takes on the form of my LSE-CM/ISS, or that of my VL2 POOF City as part of the ultimate game plan, while our moon is gradually getting relocated to Earth's L1, then so be it. As to the perfectly valid argument(s) or honest topic jest of artificially blocking out a little more than a sufficient portion of our sun, as such is all about sustaining and/or improving the quality of all life. The best I can accomplish thus far, is coming up with the new and improved sun + (moon at Earth L1) as becoming worth 50.4% of our existing lunar tide. A 50% reduction in tidal action is perhaps a little less important to ocean and other terrestrial life than we've been giving it credit. Most tidal life can adapt, some of which getting by with a little of our best intelligent design as help wherever necessary. This moon relocation process of getting that mascon situated out to Earth's L1 (roughly 4X further away than it's current orbital trek) is going to take a good century or more, and therefore I'm not imposing an overnight change to whatever terrestrial life that we know of that's attached its life endurance to that existing lunar cycle and ocean tidal issues. There will be some unfortunate extinctions of life which simply can not adapt, though hopefully humanity will not become one of those. However, at the very same time, other existing species that are currently finding it downright difficult or nearly impossible to survive as is, as such will likely bloom or otherwise better populate under the conditions of having less terrestrial trauma to deal with. A measured reduction in global warming (in good part due to the solar isolation afforded by the moon itself), along with accomplishing much less gravity/tidal trauma taking place (inside and out), is what should by rights benefit most all known species of life on Earth (hopefully just short of bringing on another ice age). What we need for this daunting task is having that spendy supercomputer running all of its parallel CPUs off the charts, doing exactly whatever's necessary for figuring out what's doable, and otherwise telling us whatever else needs to be avoided at all cost. If you have such supercomputer access, and wouldn't terribly mind running off a few of these weird ideas, as such I'd like to see a few of those what-if results in 3D animation. - Brad Guth |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
That's odd, still no better ideas as to getting our salty old and
terribly reactive moon relocated into Earth's L1. It must be doable, much like my LSE-CM/ISS is perfectly doable, as is POOF City at VL2, whereas otherwise there'd be all sorts of mainstream Zion flak to deal with. - "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell - Brad Guth |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1
Here's more of another tidbit of good news that we can all use, and
per usual there's consequences (mostly positive) to boot. As per Usenet's infomercial spewed ****ology/naysay/banishment and/or Zion/Yid status quo or bust usual, here's yet another old Boeing RASC study/report that clearly has our hocus-pocus NASA wizards working as though rad-hard within our moon's L1 for all it's worth, naturally excluding anything "Clarke Station" or that of my "LSE-CM/ISS". OASIS / Earth-Moon L1 Gateway Missions / Executive Summary 10/2/2001 http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design...SISEXEC_97.pdf Since relocating our moon to Earth's L1 is technically doable, but no matters what is never going to get accomplished, is why looking far away from anything associated with utilizing our moon or of its L1 is the only viable option we've got. Too bad our moon's rather nifty L1 has always been kept so unusually need-to-know and/or taboo to the sorry point of having been as nondisclosure rated as most of everything associated with our physically dark and unavoidably anticathode worthy moon. Of course, that's actually reinforcing more of the same good news for otherwise commercially accomplishing POOF City at VL2 instead. - Brad Guth |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Next Space Station: 7.35e22 kg worth at Earth's L1 | Brad Guth | Space Station | 1 | February 7th 07 08:17 PM |
Path to Finding Life on Mars and in Outer Space Begins By Lookingat Earth's Inner Space (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 2nd 06 04:02 PM |
Path to Finding Life on Mars and in Outer Space Begins By Lookingat Earth's Inner Space (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 2nd 06 03:30 PM |
New Station Crew Docks With Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | October 3rd 05 09:39 AM |