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

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

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

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

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.

"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

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

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

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

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