A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 1st 04, 07:03 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 04, 07:09 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 1st 04, 09:11 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 1st 04, 01:51 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus

my first thought is impacting stuff wipes out everything on the surface
including the apollo lander sites. wouldnt this be popular?

besides all those impacts MIGHT alter the moons orbit somehow

I think it might be better to add a reflective something to the venus
atmosphere and cool off the planet.

besides which the moons size and gravity are likely so low any atmosphere
created might just dissipate.
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
  #5  
Old November 1st 04, 05:32 PM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #6  
Old November 2nd 04, 01:26 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jim Davis wrote:

Brad, it's been a while since you've posted here in ssh. Have you
been well?



Recently, or ever? ;-)

Pat

  #7  
Old January 30th 05, 12:52 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old February 16th 07, 07:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.skeptic,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default 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
  #9  
Old February 17th 07, 10:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.skeptic,sci.space.station
Cardinal Chunder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default 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.
  #10  
Old February 17th 07, 06:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.skeptic,sci.space.station
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 08:18 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones UK Astronomy 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM
Space Calendar - June 27, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 3 June 28th 03 05:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.