|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"mmeron" wrote in message
Note that life on the Earth surface in the vicinity of the Earth magnetic poles, where you've no "magnetic shielding", is not disturbed by this fact. Note how many humans die specifically due to cosmic and solar radiation each year as is, whereas right now it's more than 10,000 folks and counting/year, and those are of just the more developed nations that even bother keeping track of such matters. You could completely eliminate the Earth magnetic field and radiation wise, on Earth's surface, it would've made no difference. The hell you say. Then you will not terribly mind sharing what the various densities of the Van Allen belts represent, as in spare atoms/cm3. If need be, I'll be glad to share a copy of the conx report/(con_x_dose1.pdf), and perhaps toss in the TRW/Raytheon Space Data Report just for being a good sport. BTW; I agree that 10t/m2 worth of atmosphere is in fact the bulk of what's moderating the incoming radiation that's getting through the Van Allen badlands, such as fending off the considerable gamma plus soft and hard X-rays derived from our naked moon. However, once our trusty magnetosphere has faded away, so will another portion of the atmosphere. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Lo and behold: Venus MAY Have had a Moon
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...d7b86593b27332 (beginning of topic) From: TeaTime / Date: Wed, Nov 8 2006 6:41 pm Groups: uk.sci.astronomy Did Venus once have a moon? A talking point with some interesting references: http://skytonight.com/news/4353026.html http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...6-152C-8A66834... http://www.solarviews.com/eng/hypothet.htm#neith - From: Jonathan Silverlight / Date: Sun, Nov 12 2006 3:26 pm Isn't there some question as to whether Venus owes its rotation to one impact, let alone two? The Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus links to a paper in Icarus saying tidal slowing of the atmosphere may have produced its current state http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf The moons of Mars didn't form by collision - I don't think anyone has a sensible theory for them :-) - From: TeaTime / Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 5:34 am Yes, certainly a possibility, although popular theories for Venus do suggest a catastrophic collision which put its axis/rotation in the retrograde. Tidal action of the Earth on Venus, acting steadily for billennia, then established the 3:2 spin-orbit resonance. Every 2 earth years, the exact same 'side' of the Venusian surface faces Earth. So maybe there is some sub-surface mass concentration on this area of Venus that the Earth pulls on to create the tidal lock ... a mascon created by the collision perhaps? Hopefully a lot more data will be forthcoming shortly. http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2002/venus1.2002.pdf The moons of Mars didn't form by collision - I don't think anyone has a sensible theory for them :-) They are ugly little blighters, aren't they. At first glance, one sees captured asteroids (or even comets) but apparently there is much scientific opinion to the contrary. Glad we don't have a chunk of rock like Phobos orbiting the earth at just a few thousand miles up. - (current end of topic) - Oops! Mars collected asteroids? Seems that we've heard this valid argument before, although apparently those very same pesky laws of physics work entirely different on behalf of Mars obtaining such moons, as opposed to Earth which apparently can't possibly muster whatever hocus-pocus conditional physics it takes for doing the same. Obviously our public/Caltech supercomputers and of those well funded individuals are quite available for drafting out this sort of an effort, and it gets rather well published to boot. I wonder what's the silly problem in running off a few alternatives on behalf of Earth's moon, just to honestly see what happens. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Most folks are still not being allowed to fully appreciate our moon's
L1. Of course, most Americans are still pretty much mainstream dumbfounded and/or having been snookered about a great many such important things in this highly infomercial skewed life, even as to what little we've been allowed to know of (such as there having been intelligent other life existing/coexisting on Venus). Perhaps those more intelligent members in support of the China National Space Administration/CNSA are as such less snookered than we're giving them credit for. Basically, the average free-gravity-zone of this moon L1 is supposedly r33.5~r34 away from the moon and otherwise merely r51 from Earth (unfortunately there's still no hard-scientific and thus independently replicated proof of such actually being the case of those specific numbers), that's worthy of obtaining micro if not nano and even pico gravity, although nearly any +/- adjustment in the net gravity can be accommodated and rather efficiently interactively sustained. Within this interactive moon L1 pocket (+/- wherever it has to be) there should be as little as 1% the atoms/cm3 and of the required velocity is roughly 9 fold less than LEO (those factors alone represent a rather huge reduction in orbital friction, and thereby greatly minimizing station-keeping energy demands). There's also no pesky gauntlet of Van Allen belt radiation or SAA like nasty pocket of magnetosphere stored radiation. It's also nearly always sunny as well as having either earthshine and/or moonshine at your disposal, and of that moonshine so happens to include a great deal of useful secondary/recoil photons in the IR/FIR spectrum, plus offering loads of gamma and hard-X-rays because there's so little mass between L1 and the highly reactive naked surface of the physically dark and cosmic morgue that's represented by our moon. The moon's L1 is not technically a problem for most robotics, however our frail DNA will demand a great amount of shielding that's similar to 8 meters of water, and for any long term (multi year) human involvement demanding 16 meters of water unless an artificial magnetosphere can be sustained. There's also the pesky matter of having to survive various meteors of potentially lethal flak that isn't the least bit moderated in velocity nor being gravity diverted. This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's nicely revised and certainly rather interesting but otherwise seriously outdated, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf not to mention way under-shielded unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps incorporating 16+ meters of h2o if w/o magnetosphere (shielding that's necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's continually providing such a not so DNA friendly TBI worth of gamma and hard-X-rays), is simply a downright deficient document about sharing the positive science and constructive habitat/depot considerations for utilizing the moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly any mention of the tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space exploration or the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed environment, and it's still not having squat to do with any primary task of actually developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon itself. On the other hand, whereas the CM/ISS portion of the LSE which I've proposed offers 50t/m2 of outter shell or hull shielding for accommodating the 1e9 m3 interior, thereby multiple decades if not an entire lifetime can be afforded, as to safely accommodating our frail DNA. That may seem like a rather great amount of tonnage deployment, though eventually 99.9% is derived from the moon itself. Of course, don't mind anything that I have to suggest, whereas you can keep thinking as small and/or as insignificant as you'd like. However, our having remained as LEO/terrestrial sequestered isn't going to help us explore, pillage and rape the other planets and of their moons, not to mention the mining and/or possible terraforming potential of digging into our very own global warming moon that's chuck full of nifty and rare elements. I guess what's needed for this topic is an open mindset that isn't afraid of it's own shadow, that isn't afraid of having made or of making a few honest or even not so honest mistakes, nor demonstrating that perhaps we're not exactly the smartest nor the most entitled species of DNA in this universe. (sorry about that) - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Using salty and otherwise icy moons to transfer life as we know it. Why not? Lithopanspermia and you http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org I have no problems with the likes of multi teratonne litho transfers of minerals, salty ice and life as we know it, even if such opportunities having been intentionally taken advantage of by ETs having a master plan. "Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly doable. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html "To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals. The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals." Just to honestly think a little outside the box; If much larger life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such were of a sucker-punch glancung blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't even require the Buick. "Rusty" wrote in message oups.com Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers, lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth may have seeded life to Mars by this method. Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird agenda. Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus each and very 19 month cycle. Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought it was usually the other way around). When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon? Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon of ours? Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent? Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o summer/winter)? Why did early/proto Venus have a beard? Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty? An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon" topic excluded/banished from within the rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
Brad Guth wrote: "Brad Guth" wrote in message news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Using salty and otherwise icy moons to transfer life as we know it. Why not? Lithopanspermia and you http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org I have no problems with the likes of multi teratonne litho transfers of minerals, salty ice and life as we know it, even if such opportunities having been intentionally taken advantage of by ETs having a master plan. "Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly doable. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html "To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals. The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals." Just to honestly think a little outside the box; If much larger life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such were of a sucker-punch glancung blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't even require the Buick. "Rusty" wrote in message oups.com Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers, lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth may have seeded life to Mars by this method. Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird agenda. Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus each and very 19 month cycle. Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought it was usually the other way around). When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon? Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon of ours? Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent? Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o summer/winter)? Why did early/proto Venus have a beard? Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty? An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon" topic excluded/banished from within the rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG It is far from impossible that planetary bodies do, from time to time, collide. That Mars, Venus, and Earth, may have collided in the past is very, very possible -- even probable. Such collisions could come about in our very early history and have helped determine the size of the orbs, or they may have come about more recently and have 'glanced' off each other because of the lubricant effect of their atmospheres. Such 'glancing' blows could easily have taken place with the last eon or so. While a 'glancing' blow might not result in planetary destruction it could rip an atmosphere from a smaller orb or cause cataclysmic spin and tilt. Come to think of it, the Earth is a little tilted. And, Earth also has a lot of water, almost too much water if you know what I mean. And, Mars has almost no atmosphere or water either one. Mars is, of course, the smaller of the two bodies and gravity would take from the smaller and give to the larger. God is playing billiards again, I guess. tomcat |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"tomcat" wrote in message
ups.com Mars is, of course, the smaller of the two bodies and gravity would take from the smaller and give to the larger. God is playing billiards again, I guess. It's very true and open minded that God, God's ETs as his/her minion helpers, or possibly via the purely random happenstance of cosmic fluctuations, such as within our local 225 million year galactic clock, and otherwise as due to that pesky little gravity thing of essentially everything being in orbit about something other that's of equal or better mass, is what could bring the likes of our solar system into close contact of the Sirius Oort cloud (such as every 100,000 some odd years). With somewhat better words; Utilizing salty and otherwise icy (Sedna or Ceres like) orbs as proto moons providing a viable means on behalf of transferring life as we know it; Seems rather old hat, so why the hell not? Lithopanspermia and you http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...d4bf86bb57cb6e http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...ma ilgate.org I have no faith based or other purely scientific or physics problems with the likes of multi teratonne lithobraking transfers of minerals, salty ice and of the sorts of DNA/RNA life within that cosmic ice as we know it, abd that's even if such opportunities having been intentionally taken advantage of by way of sufficiently intelligent ETs having a master plan. "Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly doable. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...989431,00.html "To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals. The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals." To honestly think a little outside the 'Earth only' box of evolution that somehow favored none other than the human species; If much larger than microbe/spore life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such mergers were of a sucker-punch glancing blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't even require the Buick. "Rusty" wrote in message oups.com Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers, lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth may have seeded life to Mars by this method. Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird agenda. Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus each and very 19 month cycle. Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought it was usually the other way around). When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon? Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon of ours? Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent? Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o summer/winter)? Why did early/proto Venus have a beard? Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty? An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon" and a few other topics excluded/banished (as "Mailgate: Message not available" or simply dropped out of sight), from within the rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:ea7904dcf9cf8a9fd7a4e4d97da058f4.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Earth w/o moon and otherwise w/o Sirius would have remained as the ultimate Winter Olympic destination world of our solar system. Every 100,000 some odd years the added warmth and life giving spectrums of illuminations via Sirius would have made for a much less icy and otherwise a terrific expedited zone of a life thriving environment (especially for the likes of diatoms), but w/o moon it would not stay that way for long as our solar system treks itself away from the Sirius star/solar system and of its massive Oort cloud of icy (Sedna/Pluto like) proto-moons. This is still an ongoing work in progress, though badly mainstream status quo flak damaged, I believe it's our best game in town for appreciating what our physically dark and nasty moon, that's so absolutely massive in ratio to its binary partner, has to offer such an environment that would otherwise have been nearly that of a frosty monoseason with an extremely modus solar tide and at times icy into the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. In other words, Earth w/o moon and w/o Sirius would have been the ultimate Winter Olympics globe of mostly snow and ice, that which only the winter sporting humans like us could appreciate. Unless you folks don't happen to believe in the regular laws of physics, in that case I'll share my dyslexic encrypted research which essentially stipulates that our somewhat recently obtained moon has been the primary GW culprit, and then of course it's also caused by a little damage to our somewhat sooty albedo, of what we've accomplished on behalf of dimming our global environment so that we manage to get more solar energy into our badly failing environment, and thirdly it's the sun doing it's usual thing of gradually going postal as it expands unless something feeds the right sort of fuel into that sucker. With each orbital applied kgf = 9.80665 joules, the influence upon all that's Earth by way of our extremely large, massive and nearby orbital mascon we call our moon is worth 2e20 Joules. At the very least, some of that orbital/tidal energy gets unavoidably converted into heat via tidal friction that's directly associated with our atmosphere, oceans and the internal movements of the Earth itself that's below our dumbfounded two left feet. That's not to mention the direct influence upon having transferred thermal energy about our globe due to the atmospheric and ocean tidal currents. 0.001% of 2e20 j/m2 = 3.91 j/m2, or per surface m3 if you'd care to think in terms of surface volume, that's in some way or another distributed upon/within the average surface area of Earth. Obviously the equator receives the vast majority of that lunar/tidal energy, and the north/south poles receive the least in direct benefit. I'm excluding upon the secondary/recoil worth of lunar IR/FIR because it's still so taboo/nonmdisclosure to even talk about, and otherwise even though our moon's IR/FIR albedo is fairly high (roughly 0.33~0.5), our moon's IR/FIR most likely isn't worth 1% of what the gravity/tidal influence has to offer. Moon's tidal energy, upon average at 0.001% = 3.91 j/m2 Us humans at one kj/soul = 6.7e12 joules = 13.1 mj/m2 Mother Earth that's getting rid of 40 TJ = 78.25 mj/m2 The 2e20 J as per acting upon the total volume of Earth (excluding our 52e17 kg of atmosphere), with Earth's physical volume being 1.083e21 m3 = 185 mj/m3 At .01% of 2e20 J, isn't the moon actually worthy of 39.1 j/m2 ? I happen to believe in the regular laws of physics, and in those thermal dynamics that's derived from good old friction and the unavoidable transferring of such energy about and within our globe, whereas my best swag as to our moon's tidal affects upon Earth is leaning closer to if not a tough greater than 0.01%, therefore we're talking about receiving a continuous surface environment worth of 39.1 j/m2, and at best our combined (all inclusive) human influence or environmental impact simply isn't worth much greater than 10% of that amount (as even that's 298 kj/soul), therefore perhaps humanity isn't at best worth but 1% of the total GW package. So, you folks can cry all you want about whatever humanity did or didn't do to mother Earth, and lo and behold global warming will unavoidably continue w/o our help, though merely at a slightly reduced rate, and that's even if each and every fossil consuming or even yellowcake energy sucking and unavoidably soot and toxic chemical polluting soul upon this planet were removed. Sorry about that. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"tomcat" wrote in message
ups.com The Earth has periods of warming and cooling that appear to have no connection whatsoever with the activity of man. While it is possible that we are 'aggravating' Global Warming it is unlikely that we have caused it or that we can stop it by our actions. That's mostly true, whereas I give humanity all of 10% worth of the ongoing GW fiasco, and the other 90% as contributed to our extremely large, massive and nearby moon that has only been with us since the last ice age. However, as it is, it takes a good -20 j/m2 shift and more than a month in order to force a given summertime environment into an icy winter environment. Obviously it'll take a little something extra, plus countless years of better than -20 J/m2 in order to reconstruct those absolutely missive layers and vast areas worth of such thick ice, as far as reaching their frost well into the tropics of Cancer/Capricorn. It is to our advantage to do those things that will enable us to adapt, rather than try to stop the inevitable at the cost of our economy. We seem to be running on Muslim blood, or any other blood that's getting in our way. INSULATION will protect against both heat and cold. To triple the insulation in our homes makes a good deal of sense. Oddly, I have R1024/m at your disposal, and its somewhat structural as well as essentially fire proof. DOMES will protect against high winds in the Super Storm category. Geodesic domes should become the 'new' style in above ground housing. I agree, as well as for promoting 50/50 underground for those bad solar days w/o a viable magnetosphere to defend our frail DNA seems like a good move. UNDERGROUND homes don't get hit by the wind at all and provide enormous insulation besides. Obviously a good choice where a high water table doesn't present problems. Now you're talking common sense and of what's perfectly doable within existing expertise and resources. ELECTRICITY provides the energy to produce either heat or cold for our homes as well as lighting, cooking, and hot water, et. al. Massive nuclear reactors in relatively barren parts of our country should be built to augment our electrical power reserves. The composite solar PV, Stirling and Wind Turbine energy footprint density is roughly 100 fold better off than most anything nuclear. DISTILLATION of Sea Water should be developed that could take the place of rivers and streams that dry up due to Global Changes. Lots of spare energy in = h2o out. OUTER SPACE needs our top priority so that man can leave the Earth and be free of Earth's changes, cold, hot, or violent. Space Colonies will 'not' be affected by Earth's climate except when they are still dependent on Earth for resupply. All we or rather China have to accomplish is that of our moon's L1. GENETIC ENGINEERING can adapt man to a particular environment. While our current capabilites are marginal, soon adaptation to extreme environments will be Genetics 101 taught at the Freshman level. Intelligent design is but one of the ways out of this horrific mess. SOLAR ENGINEERING so we can tame that big furnace 'up there' that is currently melting our ice caps. Silly jewboy that's still in denial; without our pesky mascon/moon, or simply with our moon relocated out to Earth L1 would more than cool off mother Earth, and then some. The above are a few suggestions that could -- if done in time -- help prevent cataclysmic events by enabling us to simply adapt to the changes. The events would then be 'dramatic' but not 'cataclysmic'. But first you'll have to get most all of those born-again liars (mostly those Third Reich minions of the Old Testament and/or Skull and Bones types) out of public office. Good luck on that one. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:09119ca4fc63a755ff19e35ab5699889.49644@mygate .mailgate.org First of all, Earth w/o moon would still be humanly livable, although soon enough becoming an icy cold sucker. However, Earth w/o magnetosphere will soon become a larger version of Mars, and thus not so surface livable. An ongoing question is: What can we best afford to move into Earth's L1 that'll give us the most interactive control of shade, and still provide us with multiple other nifty considerations that are much better off than we currently have to work with? The previous pun of a notion that's on behalf of relocating Sedna to Earth's L1 might eventually become one of our best solutions for accomplishing a solar shade that's a little big but otherwise just about the right size of solar shade. However, as for my going along with John Schilling, I'd have to agree that a relocation of Sedna to Earth's L1 is a stretch, not to mention a serious long term alternative that sucks at being at least a good century at best away from benefiting our GW situation, that's only going to get worse per year after year no matters what. Or, don't you folks fully appreciate where the vast majority of our ice age thawing and ongoing GW energy is actually coming from? Did by chance any of you folks even once bother to ask our resident lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how much tonnage of U238/U235 we're talking about, as per relocating our very own moon, to Earth's L1? Or, what if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238 that we're likely going to need for WW-III, we simply utilized Sedna's arriving worth of KE, as for having a direct impact at just the right timing and angle? Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were orchestrated on behalf of arriving at the final moon impact velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules Even if that were at 10% KE impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27 joules, although a rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a much softer 2.5e26 joules, that by rights should still accomplish a little something impressive. - Alternative if not a whole lot better local Plan-B: Relocate our moon Relocating lunar mass via L2 deployed tether, far out past the moon's L2 point of no return. Say going way out there for using this 2X L2, and say we/robotics somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes out there on the tippy end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the moon's CG, a placement distance of roughly 129,400 km for starters seems perfectly doable. How much applied exit or delta-v force is that going to provide? Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right. 2X moon L2 = 129,400 km 129,400 / 384,400 = .33663 Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s 2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth) 2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon) Centripetal/Centrifugal force: Fc=MV2/r http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf If we're given the 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's tether) Moon's 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes Earth/moon 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes That's a combined total of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force that's worthy of accomplishing something, especially when applied over the time span of perhaps a few years, of which I don't believe it'll actually take all that long, or even nearly the 1e12 kg placement of mass at the moon's 2X L2. Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon L2 package of 1e12 kg in tethered mass acting as a physical tug upon getting that nasty moon further away from Earth, how long will it take for that task of getting rid of our moon (relocated to Earth L1 that is)? Seems having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually a multi-tasking win-win for accomplishing all sorts of future science and space exploration, and otherwise of direct benefit to our environment, and of most everything else I can think of seems better off. As for the naysay or whatever negatives, at least thus far I have a list of zilch to offer because, it even benefits my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy its tether dipole element to within 4r of Earth, and there's lots more to consider if you still have that yaysay open mindset to work with. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:09119ca4fc63a755ff19e35ab5699889.49644@mygate .mailgate.org Perhaps entirely w/o moon is asking a bit much, especially since Earth would soon get extra cold without sufficient tidal forces to move our interior plus vast oceans of thermal energy about, as such we'd be icing up really good, plus a few areas getting somewhat stinky at the same time. However, have I got nifty L1 shade for you: http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sc...=smart&p=1/360 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...25b2f50bea63b9 In addition to establishing a great deal of shade (perhaps a touch more than necessary), we'd also have established the absolute ideal TRACE outpost, as well as keeping the Chinese or possibly Russian LSE-CM/ISS as 100% viable to boot (actually far better yet because of the moon's L1 becoming so nicely shaded, that even Bigalow's POOFs could be safely utilized). What's so terribly wrong, or even all that technically insurmountable with my notions of relocating our very own cosmic morgue of a mascon, as our nasty old salty and global warming moon, all the way out to Earth L1? Utilizing the tethered mass at 2X L2 seems like a perfectly good alternative to using millions of spendy rockets (that we obviously don't have or couldn't actually apply) or whatever nuclear produced delta-v, especially since most every required tonne and of the tether itself would be extracted from the moon itself. Where's all of your warm and fuzzy Usenet yaysay and of whatever wizardly applied expertise of eye popping candy, and otherwise on behalf of knocking our socks off, especially when our badly failing environment and extremely frail DNA needs such efforts the most? What's all that negative or otherwise naysay about relocating our moon, for obtaining such absolute spare loads of ice age rebuilding shade, and of so much more to come? Since we're into losing our DNA/RNA protective magnetosphere, at the ongoing demise of 0.05%/year, as such, what other long-term options for protecting Earth's atmosphere and of our sequestered butts on this badly polluted surface do we have? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - May 24, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 24th 06 04:12 PM |
Space Calendar - March 23, 2006 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 23rd 06 04:18 PM |
Space Calendar - January 26, 2006 | [email protected] | History | 0 | January 28th 06 12:42 AM |
Space Calendar - October 27, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 27th 05 05:02 PM |
Space Calendar - February 25, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 25th 05 04:25 PM |