|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote:
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 5:32*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. *Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. *Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. *Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. *shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug The Moon is attainable by our present day technology. What if we established our base underground to avoid the RADs? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 6:01*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:32*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. *Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. *Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. *Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. *shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug The Moon is attainable by our present day technology. Not at all. You've lost your marbles. Stephen Hawking claims that same stupidity... Give a price per person on the moon and see what you get... Mitchell Raemsch; the prize What if we established our base underground to avoid the RADs?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 5:32*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. *Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. *Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. *Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. *shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug If there is a high RADs- then there should be a way to harness this energy on the Moon. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
In sci.physics John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:32Â*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. Â*Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. Â*Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. Â*Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. Â*shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug If there is a high RADs- then there should be a way to harness this energy on the Moon. Perhaps in the ideal world there should be, but in the real world there is no usefull energy to be had. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 6:01*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:32*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. *Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. *Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. *Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. *shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug The Moon is attainable by our present day technology. *What if we established our base underground to avoid the RADs? Yes, underground is a reasonably safe bet. Robotic TBM's can help make that underground base a reality. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 7:57*pm, John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:32*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. *Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. *Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. *Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. *shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug If there is a high RADs- then there should be a way to harness this energy on the Moon. The moon gives off gamma, so that perhaps triggering thorium into fission isn't going to be nearly as tough as once thought. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
In sci.physics John Gogo wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:32Â*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote: On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo wrote: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon? For instance, compared to our "space station". The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. Â*Above the LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts. shrug The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year. In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. Â*Above the Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs per year on the average. Â*Any solar activity will in addition sharply increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. Â*shrug http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q...watch_response shrug The Moon is attainable by our present day technology. What if we established our base underground to avoid the RADs? Given the amount of "stuff" needed to survive on the moon and the expense of getting the "stuff" there, shielding is a rather trivial nit in the overall endeavor. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on themoon?
The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
to fit the niche that it occupies. Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that damages molecules, by two things: 1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind 2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma rays from the sun. It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying. Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying. Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
On Feb 9, 9:07*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved to fit the niche that it occupies. Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that damages molecules, by two things: * *1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind * *2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma * * * rays from the sun. It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying. Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying. Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically. Once a few meters into that physically dark and paramagnetic lunar basalt, you'd be safer from radiation than here on Earth. Btw; our moon gives off a million fold more gamma/m2 than our sun. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BUZZ on Howard Stern.."No to the Moon"...Denies wanting to be "First"! | Jonathan | History | 21 | April 21st 10 10:36 PM |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |
NatGeo's "Space Race - The Untold Story"...And you thought "Moon Shot" was bad, kids... | OM | History | 21 | July 5th 06 06:40 PM |