|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus
Our moon is already providing us with a terrific "space station and
orbiting platform" that'll knock your socks off. This topic is not persay about initially creating a human breathable atmosphere, especially since it's unlikely that much greater than 0.1 bar can be sustained (unless you're planning upon being situated in a deep crater), and much of that might have to become CO2/Rn. This topic is however about improving upon the delivery and subsequent deployments of future instruments, as per getting those items efficiently and safely onto and even for those intended as going into the moon, with the hopes that eventually a somewhat fly-by-rocket gyrocopter or of something similar will become a method of transporting about the moon instead of reliance upon surface trekking over such horrifically hostile sorts of sharp meteorites and strewn shards that are certain to inflict great harm (excessive wear and tear) as to most forms of mechanical drives and/or surface treads. I'm thinking in terms of mostly imposing this in the form of my susgesting a few too many questions as to why not, such as to the first notions of tonne per tonne of whatever the likes of dry-ice(CO2) can be effectively directed at the moon, and as such since this effort is not the least bit intended as for orbiting and thereby impact limited by way of any aspect of escape velocity, but as for such items of mostly dry-ice being intentionally directed as for impacting the mostly basalt surface. My first question is; how much pulverised/vaporised lunar basalt is going to transpire per tonnage of whatever becomes Earth sent dry-ice that should be impacting at 30+km/s, if not capable of exceeding 100 km/s? Besides using blocks or spheres of raw dry-ice (perhaps those might host a core/volume of LOX or frozen H2O), I have a few questions as to what other substances and/or shell densities might enable the best possible kinetic energy worth upon vaporising lunar basalt? Besides what I'm suggesting, what's the maximum possible final velocity(Vf) of impact per such delivery? Obviously one method of achieving an absolutely terrific velocity is going for the long way around the sun, or at least a trek around Venus, as intended for arriving in the opposit direction, accomplishing a good solar/Venus boosted acceleration plus the merging reverse orbital SOA adding 30 km/s should improve those impact(Vf) energies by creating a great deal more than 100 km/s. Unfortunately, for such a long-haul method is where dry-ice simply is not going to remain as a solid by the time of lunar impact, however other substances might be just as good if not somewhat better than the worth of CO2 contributions to the lunar atmosphere, as the primary element of creating an artificial atmosphere is actually already within the lunar basalt. However, a direct shot at the moon should become somewhat fast enough, perhaps obtained within less than 24 hours since there's no great amount of technology applied, nor having any mission related life support, thus lots of reserve capacity for the necessary one-way rocket energy and payload, all of which would vaporise nicely into the moon, as in addition to whatever payload of dry-ice(CO2), plus Rn and/or H2O, the secondary elements of the final rocket stage should become worth another tonne that'll equally vaporise itself along with whatever basalt. Just in case this topic gets a wee bit over the mainstream box edge, I do have a few alternative topics that can be selected at random, or perhaps eventually I'll do whatever I can as to edit upon this one or re-introduce other related 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
|
|||
|
|||
In case you haven't figured this one out; this topic is about the ISS
being appropriately re-utilized on behalf of science and humanity. One of the existing methods of getting whatever onto the moon is by utilizing the same method as per getting stuff onto Mars. However, for this efficient method to work we'll need to create a slight atmosphere of perhaps 0.01 bar (similar to the maximum obtainable on Mars), thus with nearly half the gravity represents roughly 4 times the payload can be safely delivered. Such as per those LUNAR-A probes and of my Javelin Probes could certainly use a little aerobreaking and final alignment as per having a slight aerodynamic influence to work with. With an atmosphere of CO2/Rn created by way of our artificially impacting the moon with bombs of CO2/Rn and perhaps even a bit of frozen H2O, most of which should stick around for improving the tonnage of lunar atmosphere. I'm still thinking of roughly the 1000:1 ratio of whatever transpires per tonne of whatever's impacting the moon. Thus each tonne delivered creates 1000 tonnes worth of vaporised basalt that's mostly comprised of O2. At some point mother nature could kick into accomplishing more of the same. Of course, for the station-keeping perspective of ISS being almost too good to be true, the task of deploying the Javelin Probes and/or of just about any instruments via tether seems rather nifty. In which case the ongoing efforts at terraforming the moon could remain as a long-term effort of decades, which is still quicker and far cheaper than doing anything about Mars. Having ISS as per station-keeping at the ME-L1 zone would greatly improve the odds of obtaining at least robotic surface access to the lunar He3, plus subsequently affording all sorts of Earth/moon and interplanetary science that's way past due. Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In case you haven't figured this one out; this topic is as much about
ISS being affordably and very appropriately re-utilized on behalf of science and humanity, as much as this is about terraforming our moon for the good of humanity. Without ISS station-keeping at ME-L1, one of the alternative methods of potentially getting whatever onto the moon is by way of utilizing the same technology as per getting stuff onto Mars. However, for this semi-efficient method to work we'll need to create a slight atmosphere of perhaps 0.01 bar (similar to the maximum obtainable on Mars). At 0.01 bar and nearly half the gravity of Mars represents roughly 4 times the payload can be safely delivered, such as per those LUNAR-A probes and of my Javelin Probes could certainly use a little aerobreaking and final pre-impact alignment as per having a slight aerodynamic influence to work with. With a thin atmosphere of CO2/Rn, established by way of our artificially impacting the moon with bombs of CO2/Rn and perhaps even a bit of frozen H2O, I'm told most of which should stick around for improving the tonnage of lunar atmosphere. I'm still thinking of roughly the 1000:1 ratio is what should transpire per tonne of whatever's impacting the moon. Thus each tonne delivered creates at least 1000 tonnes worth of vaporised basalt that's mostly comprised of O2. However, of taking the head-on delivery of impacting at 30+km/s is where this ratio should become as great as 1e6:1, as certainly emphasized by those Leonid meteor impacts which enabled the excavation of such mass tonnage of sodium. I've also been informed that at some point in this process is where a given atmospheric threshold enables mother nature to kick into accomplishing more of the same. Of course, for the station-keeping perspective of ISS being almost too good to be true, the task of deploying the Javelin Probes and/or of just about any robotic instruments via tether seems rather nifty. In which case the ongoing efforts at terraforming the moon could remain as a long-term effort of decades, which is still quicker and far cheaper than doing anything about Mars. At least thus far there's absolutely nothing available on Mars that humanity needs, and we certainly don't need the aftermath pollution of 1000:1 tonnes of whatever we manage to send towards Mars, as that's become one hell of a spendy environmental impact for Earth. Having ISS as per station-keeping within the ME-L1 zone would simply greatly improve the odds of obtaining our best ever robotic surface access to the stash of lunar He3, plus subsequently affording all sorts of Earth/moon and interplanetary science that's way past due. Crew rotations could minimize the TBI factor to within reasonable limits of where banked bone marrow should offer a sufficient backup plan. Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-javelin-probes.htm The basic LSE-CM/ISS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding the artificial terraforming of the moon, and not that my math
is sufficiently correct, none the less here's good food for thought as to what ISS could efficiently accomplish on behalf of robotically bombing the moon into sustaining an atmosphere; As per information nicely provided on the DEEP IMPACT mission, of their 372 kg impact probe that includes a 144 kg wedge of solid copper, and of that item supposedly impacting at a final combined velocity of 10.3 km/s is going to become worth generating a crater of 91 meters by 30 meters, thus displacing and/or vaporising roughly 101e3 m3 worth of what's got to weigh at least 2 g/cm3 unless it's a snowball that can't possibly exist or perhaps more than likely at best being dry-ice worth 1.56g/cm3. Although, there's actually not much reason in the laws of physics for said block of dry-ice to not have vaporised and dispersed as it arrives anywhere within the orbit of Mars, especially if it's dirty dry-ice which is most likely the case since space stuff is often a relatively low albedo. Thus a comet density of 2 g/m3 is roughly 202e6 kg that gets displaced and/or vaporised from the impact of what the 372 kg probe is suggesting as a 543e3:1 mass displacement ratio achievement at merely 10.3 km/s. DEEP IMPACT is expected to excavate and/or vaporise roughly 101e3 m3 away from the target utilizing this relatively slight object in size that's worth a total mass of 372 kg (including it's 144 kg copper wedge) as it encounters the comet at 10.3 km/s. Therefore, imagine upon what 30+km/s would become worth, and then upon increasing the payload by ten fold to 3720 kg as we should be exceeding the sorts of physical tonnage in basalt being displaced plus at least obtaining a 1e6:1 ratio worth of vaporing lunar basalt into whatever's elements are contained within, of which the bulk of substance being O2 that should stick around considering the gravity advantage of our moon as compared to that of Titan. Depending upon the angle of such a probe impacting our moon, it's entirely possible that some of the displaced moon rock will escape the lunar gravity and eventually reenter upon Earth, although using those 3720 kg blocks of dry-ice and core of frozen Rn should not create much greater than a 200 m worth of crater, of which the bulk of whatever is excavated should land back onto the moon, whereas the released sodium vapor is subsequently blown away by the 30+km/s head winds and further excavated away by the 600 km/s solar winds, leaving the heavier elements of basalt O2 and certainly the remains of dry-ice as CO2 and frozen Radon as Rn providing their slight contribution. At the 1e6:1 ratio estimate, it seems the task of terraforming the moon into retaining s slight atmosphere is looking better than I'd thought. Too bad this idea remains as too far over the heads and even slipping entirely through the legs of most all the NASA and ISS polished brass that remains perfectly content upon essentially seeing ISS crashing down in flames without ever accomplishing all that much, except for risking shuttle crews. As a secondary notion on behalf of bombing the moon; with an appropriate probe of perhaps nearly solid U238 or something similar as contained within a titanium alloy shell might allow access into creating somewhat deep pockets, whereas instead of a 3:1 ratio of crater width:depth seems the opportunity of creating as much as a 1:1 depression, much better yet if that's including a 100 megatonne nuclear tipped warhead. If 372 kg at 10.3 km/s is supposedly worth a 91 X 30 meter crater (100e3 m3), then perhaps 30+km/s should become worth vaporising nearly 850e3 m3, and if increasing the probe mass and toughness by fifty fold (18.6 tonnes) might further suggest a maximum impact/pit capability of 42.5e6 m3 as represented by a 500 X 500 meter crater/pit. Of course, 18.6 tonnes is going to take some horrific launch capability, and possibly a few secondary near-miss treks past Earth in order to sufficiently head-on impact with the moon, whereas I'm fairly certain the anti-everything-under-the-sun cults along with all of the pro-NASA freaks will be protesting this one to death, yet perfectly fine and dandy with the likes of blowing yet another trillion polluting Earth in the process of sending folks to Mars. Obviously the notion of having ISS as station-keeping at ME-L1 would allow the likes of robotic tether crawlers as to extracting moon rocks and hauling such towards ISS (roughly 64,000 km off the deck), whereas that same substance is reutilized as for impacting the moon instead of having to rely upon spendy and polluting rockets sending stuff towards the moon from Earth. If you still can't possibly imagine this happening, then perhaps the next instalment should further improve upon what I'm thinking is doable. Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
heavier elements
of basalt O2 and certainly the remains of dry-ice as CO2 and frozen Radon as Rn providing their slight contribution. Why would you use Rn? Adding more radiation to this environment is rather self-defeating. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"G EddieA95" wrote in message
heavier elements of basalt O2 and certainly the remains of dry-ice as CO2 and frozen Radon as Rn providing their slight contribution. Why would you use Rn? Adding more radiation to this environment is rather self-defeating. Good point. I was just giving that CO2/Rn as an example of something that's sufficiently heavy to stick around. And, I don't believe Rn would freeze itself solid at night. It doesn't do much good to offer whatever's sodium or lighter, as the evidence of the 900,000 km cloud of extracted sodium pretty much confirms of what should stay put as opposed to what's leaving town via the next solar wind. As to the other interesting aspects of Radon (Rn), being that supposedly a frozen batch of that nasty substance would certainly add considerable mass to those blocks or spheres of dry-ice that would otherwise be limited to 1.56 g/cm3. If we need to impact the moon, I don't believe you can have too much mass. At least Rn is a far better alternative to that of a 100 megatonne nuke. The other consideration is that of whatever impacts the lunar surface is going to vaporise perhaps 1e6:1 worth of lunar basalt, thus the percentage of whatever Rn isn't going to be excessive. Thus one tonne of delivery creates a megatonne worth of vaporised basalt, half of that becoming O2. Besides, any notion of humans walking essentially moonsuit naked upon the surface of the already easily pulverised and TBI to death lunar surface isn't going to transpire for many years after the gradual buildup of atmosphere is actually transpiring (preferably on its' own). The primary need for the likes of Rn as for establishing a dense however thin surround of atmosphere which isn't persay for direct human benefit, as it's for the likes of efficiently deploying robotics onto the lunar surface. Creating a base of 0.01 bar and the gravity being nearly half that of Mars, this represents that roughly four times as much mass can be safely deployed utilizing the Mars probe delivery method that's spendy but we know works just fine and dandy. I've initiated another topic that's perhaps a bit wordy to start off with: "The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn" Perhaps this is where things will get interesting, as either that or the mainstream flak is going nuclear after my butt. Thanks for your feedback, as such few and far between contributions have been the norm for anything I'm attempting to share. I always like a direct question that's specific, and not that I'll know the right answer because, there's a great deal I do not know. At least I'm not afraid to research and if need be take another educated guess. If you have any suggestions for whatever alternative matrix of whatever substances that would safely contribute to terraforming the moon, I'm all ears, and willing to share and share alike any credits, as I think there's way more than enough to go around. Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Terraforming our moon isn't about accommodating naked humans, as not
even moonsiuted humans can withstand the extended radiation nor influx of whatever the moon is encountering at 30+km/s, not to mention the potential of a closing speed of advance being capable of 100 km/s, along with the typical solar flak of 600 km/s is asking quite a great deal of being damn lucks. Establishing an atmosphere will significantly moderate the situation, by deflecting some of the space debris and certainly taking a little brute force out of any given meteor or even a dust-bunny that'll deliver serious damage to whomever within the vicinity of the impact zone. Atmosphere (even if it CO2/Rn) is also the best possible defense against cosmic and solar radiation, contributing the least secondary radiation of what's usually fairly nasty hard-X-Rays that our human DNA has a hard time repairing itself without going into total rejection mode, so much so that retaining a stash of 'Banked Bone Marrow' may remain as the only viable recourse for those fools insisting upon spending any amount of time trekking across the solar illuminated surface of our moon, whereas even via earthshine isn't all that DNA/RNA friendly unless you're riding about in the 600t LM-1 bus. Apparently the notion of applied physics (science truth or consequences) on behalf of appropriately utilizing ISS for doing some actual hard-science good on behalf of humanity isn't worth salt. Folks encharge would rather have us contemplating places entirely unaccessible to humanity, whereas even unproven and yet to be developed robotic recovery expeditions will cost hundreds of billions and take decades to accomplish, not to mention the pollution impact upon mother Earth. You'd think of what ESA has been recently showing us about Titan, of what that sub-frozen moon having such a terrific though humanly nasty atmosphere that's at least darn good for getting fairly substantial robotics onto the surface due to the tremendous atmospheric density, that which our laws of astrophysics and present knowledge base of planetary/moon geology still offers us nothing as to why it's even there, especially since the Titan gravity of 1.35 m/s is relatively slight as to be holding onto 1.5 bar. Too bad we still have nothing persay of our lunar surface environment, other than what has been obtained from orbit and from the likes of KECK that's offering greater than 10 fold better resolution than from the latest SMART-1 mission. I believe even TRACE could image the moon at better resolution than SMART-1. Titan makes me consider our moon @1.623 m/s worth of gravity should certainly do a whole lot better off than its' reported 3e-15 bar, and it seems that I'm not the first nor the last individual speculating as to what's possible on behalf of improving that situation. The notion of utilizing ISS as station-keeping @36~38r(62,568 ~ 66,044 km) with a tether anchored into the moon, having robotic tether crawlers bringing up amounts of lunar basalt that can be released at perhaps 32~33r(55,616 ~ 57,354 km) should rather nicely impact at enough final velocity as to vaporise 1e6:1 worth of surface basalt, of which better than 50% of that is O2. Unfortunately, contributing feedback on anything having to do with our moon, Venus or Sirius is NASA/NSA/DoD off-limits, as in taboo 'nondisclosure' or bust, as in NASA damage-control teams of borgs doing whatever it takes as to keeping their mainstream media sufficiently threatened and/or snookered into submission, or else. Perhaps that's where I'm getting my notions about 'FORUMS THAT SUCK'. Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Titan,
"Radar images revealed dark patches which could indicate liquid methane or ethane." Rivers and lakes of LNG? All that's needed is a little spare energy, and the bulk of that LNG becomes hydrogen. Said spare energy might be easily derived from the hydrodynamics of those methane/ethane rivers, certainly from the reported winds or from most any geothermal source. Titan must have an active core and thereby something that's available near the surface, as otherwise how would those elements of methane/ethane continually boil off into creating and sustaining that thick atmosphere which already contains a great deal of nitrogen. If a moon having such a slight gravity and so little solar influx as Titan can retain an atmosphere, then certainly the hot and nasty prospects for our moon can't be all that far behind. Actually, the dark basalt/coal like surface of our moon is in fact damn hot as well as extremely well vacuum insulated, receiving 1.4 kw/m2 and each of those m2 sharing perhaps another 25% worth of reflected IR off the surrounding dark lunar terrain. Although, since there's been such a slight amount of atmosphere is clearly why that thermal energy absorbson isn't being shared about the globe, thus each nighttime season upon our moon is seriously cold, though never as cold as Titan. What our moon needs is a little assistance in expediting the available elements contained within basalt, into those elements being vaporised on behalf of releasing the mostly O2 portion. If DEEP IMPACT accomplishes so much pulverising and vaporising with such a relatively slight wedge of copper, then we should be right on track of impacting our moon with something similar, or perhaps via initial payloads of dry-ice(CO2) and frozen radon(Rn). Being that our moon represents far more gravity influence than any comet, and we've been continually informed by reputable scientist that our moon includes deposits of water-ice (though perhaps a wee bit deeper than hoped for), chances are fairly good for obtaining results of releasing some of that trapped ice by way of impacting at 30+km/s as opposed to the 10+km/s of DEEP IMPACT. Of course that represents we could be losing out on some if not all of the stored He3. In fact, a roundabout trek of an accelerated head-on impact should accomplish at least double 30+km/s into becoming worth 60+km/s. Thus the prospect of creating 1e6:1 results shouldn't be exaggerating one bit. That leaves us with the task of launching sufficient tonnage and subsequently impacting the moon on behalf of inducing an initial atmosphere of at least 0.01 bar, hoping for as good as 0.17 bar. 1,000 tonnes worth of impactors should enable a teratonne worth of creating the sort of atmosphere that'll stick around, and that's something future deployments of conventional methods that we know works just fine and dandy can subsequently deliver the likes of scientific instruments, interplanetary transponders and the much needed robotic receiving apertures of the SAR/SIR imaging that instead of the 60 meter baseline accommodated by a shuttle mission we're talking about 386,400 km worth of baseline. Matching that sort of improvement up with another 10 fold detector chip improvement and lo and behold, we might actually obtain better than a 16 bits of one meter/pixel images of Titan. Of course, this extended baseline of 386,400 km and the fact that the required radar transmitting arrays are already established, as well as bought and paid for, capable of focusing at least another thousand fold greater radar energy than provided from any shuttle based imaging system, you'd think this should only further improve upon our obtaining those images at less than 1% the cost and nearly zero pollution impact of shipping off those spendy probes that take years and billions to develop, then several more years just getting to their mission destination, as opposed to the speed of light being the only limitation of simply utilizing a lunar based aperture as the SAR/SIR receiving baseline solution to obtaining absolutely terrific imaging results. Other available topics besides SAR/SIR imaging: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wasn't it Brad Guth who wrote:
If a moon having such a slight gravity and so little solar influx as Titan can retain an atmosphere, then certainly the hot and nasty prospects for our moon can't be all that far behind. The escape velocities of the two bodies are reasonably similar, but the fact that Titan is so cold means that the molecules in its atmosphere are very much slower than they would be at the temperature of our Moon. Slow enough, in fact, that most of the molecules stay below Titan's escape velocity. The Moon is very much hotter than Titan, so if you try to build an atmosphere there, many of the molecules would exceed lunar escape velocity and the atmosphere would leak away into space. -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the good feedback.
However, only half of our moon gets seriously hot and nasty, whereas the other half remains downright cold and nasty (though remaining somewhat insulated because it's within a near vacuum). The shift from being too hot to getting too cold is somewhat gradual, ideal for solid/vapor phase changing. With 1.623 m/s and the greater initial mass of using CO2/Rn should stick around, even when it gets reasonably hot and nasty, and blown by 600 km/s solar winds. I can fully appreciate why the likes of those sodium atoms get summarily excavated away from our moon, but what about the vaporised basalt that becomes O2 and of those heavier elements? Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 7 | January 29th 04 09:29 PM |
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 28th 03 09:21 AM |
The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003 | Nathan Jones | Misc | 20 | November 11th 03 07:33 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | September 28th 03 08:00 AM |