Dynamics of an Earth Ring

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote in message
...
Greg D. Moore wrote:
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" wrote:

What drives me insane about some of you guys is that
unless...

...let me put it this way: lo those many years ago,
you'd have killfiled Galileo.

Science has a long way to go before it fully and
accurately describes reality and--as we are shown again
and again--all the "proof" in the world can't transform
theory into incontrovertible fact. I'm all for being a
little skeptical about wild ideas, but history
continues to rub our collective noses in the fact that
what we accept today as true and correct is going down
the tubes tomorrow.

I've been amused over the last 3 or 4 years by the Star Trek effect...
science invented for plots for the TV series has a habit of appearing. For
example there are research groups talking about transporting an electron
across a room whereas the Star Trek transporters was invented because the TV
production company didn't have enough budget to do a "space ship landing"
special effect. And alternative universe models to explain quantum
computers...

Stephen

In sci.space.policy AA Institute wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote in message news:41601991$0$17957

Google "how the moon was formed".

Thanks Ian. The first hit gives me this link, which is very
interesting:-

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Here they list 5 possible ways the Moon could have formed:-

snip
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the
earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material
was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in
orbit around the Earth.

Apparently, in that web article, the fifth hypo (Ejected Ring Theory)
is the *most* favoured. On a first thought, I personally find that to
be the LEAST likely. It just does not 'fit', somehow... Anyone have
any other preferences?

The universe does not care about your feelings.
Or my feelings, or anyones feelings.

There have been detailed computer simulations of a large planitessimal
hitting the earth.
The debris you get condenses into a moon-like body very rapidly (years).

You at least need to look at the other theories, and explain why they
are more likely than the prevailing opinion.
With numbers rather than vague handwaving.

My initial question is "Why not do the same thing on the Moon itself?";
lots of room to tunnel underground, etc.

otoh, I like the general idea of a ring around the planet but it sounds
unstable with the Earth/Moon binary setup; other ringed planets have a
much greater difference in the Moon to Planet ratio.


TBerk

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
In sci.space.policy AA Institute wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote in message news:41601991$0$17957

Google "how the moon was formed".

Thanks Ian. The first hit gives me this link, which is very
interesting:-

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...formation.html

Here they list 5 possible ways the Moon could have formed:-

snip
5. The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the
earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material
was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in
orbit around the Earth.

Apparently, in that web article, the fifth hypo (Ejected Ring Theory)
is the *most* favoured. On a first thought, I personally find that to
be the LEAST likely. It just does not 'fit', somehow... Anyone have
any other preferences?

The universe does not care about your feelings.
Or my feelings, or anyones feelings.

There have been detailed computer simulations of a large planitessimal
hitting the earth.
The debris you get condenses into a moon-like body very rapidly (years).

You at least need to look at the other theories, and explain why they
are more likely than the prevailing opinion.
With numbers rather than vague handwaving.

Fair points. So would the material emanating from a carved asteroid
start clumping together into a miniature moon in my 'Earth ring'
scenario? Unless there's some non-linear, complex gravitational
phenomena wildly outside my scope of *humble* imaginations at play, I
would expect the ring system to stay fairly stable, since every
particle along the orbital path would be equally perturbed by the
Earth and the Moon. Perhaps the ring system as a whole would rotate at
a faster rate around the Earth due to the pull of the Moon, with its
line of nodes precessing along the equatorial plane.

Surely the geostationary satellite 'ring' at 35,700 km above the
equator is a good representation, where each satellite represents an
individual ring *particle*? Ahh, there is a difference here though -
the satellites aren't close enough for mutual interactions between
them... hence the GSO is not a 'true' ring.

Are you able to make any "guesses"? (If indeed guessing is acceptable
for an *informal* view for what little that may be worth).

Thanks
Abdul

Tim Auton wrote in message . ..
"Paul Blay" wrote:
"AA Institute" wrote ...
However, managing the waste from a microscopic size crew of just 3
people vs a colony of say 2,000 on the *Celestial Titanic* being
envisioned here, is a whole new ball game! A MAGIC formula is needed,
or we end up with a "Lord of the Earth Rings" kind of scenario...

No more MAGIC than is required for a colony of 2,000 people in the first
place.

snip
You need to solve the problem of efficiently
getting mass out of the Earth's gravity well before you can even think
about big fancy space stations or mining operations.

Cost is the *only* issue here. Since *one* human life is infinitely
more precious than a trillion dollars (as evidenced by the world's
utter shock and horror in the wake of the Columbia tragedy), safe
human cargo transportation will foreseeably always remain a
bottleneck.

As for unmanned rockets lifting trillions of kilograms over several
decades with perhaps one launch per day, I see *cost* as the only
issue. With a Celestial Titanic(!) scale building program like the one
I propose here, ALL operations will be carried out using robotic
missions without getting a single person ever setting a foot on any
dodgy, glorified fireworks rocket!

As for the cost side, well our economic framework is too prohibitive
in my view, and that needs realigning towards a common, planet-wide
"space" goal. That is the responsibility of NASA administrator Sean
O'Keefe, Tony Blair, George W. Bush,... and countless others in world
government. The question to ask is: are we serious about building a
*permanent* presence in space... or is this just another 'fun' thing
where we just go into orbit for a nice view of the Earth and then come
back down and get on with the rest of life...

If the great Egyptian empire was sitting around with hi-tech computers
working through dollar/sterling/euro exchange rate impacts on balance
of payments deficits between Europe and the US, and how much FAT the
balance sheets of large companies like Exxon Mobil Corporation would
accumulate in the next 30 years for its shareholders... then the great
Pyramids would never have been built!

Costs and finances are artificial, superficial concerns in the grand
scheme of this universe. I thought that's what all these space
telescopes peering into the distant cosmic reaches, the near Earth
object tracking programs, the SETI programs that have found nothing
but "fluff" everywhere,... were supposed to teach us?

How much is the preservation of human society worth in the face of all
the prevailing cosmic dangers facing our planetary cradle?

AAI

"AA Institute" wrote ...
Cost is the *only* issue here. Since *one* human life is infinitely
more precious than a trillion dollars (as evidenced by the world's
utter shock and horror in the wake of the Columbia tragedy), safe
human cargo transportation will foreseeably always remain a
bottleneck.

Nope. In fact human space flight has got the safety angle _all_
wrong. It's easily demonstrated that the less people are killed
the more significant it is.
42,000 fatalities in road accidents in the USA? Not news.
295 fatalities in rail accidents? News
7 fatalities in space accidents? Mega news.

The obvious answer is that we need to get people up there,
and dying, in droves.

"Paul Blay" wrote in message ...
"AA Institute" wrote ...
Cost is the *only* issue here. Since *one* human life is infinitely
more precious than a trillion dollars (as evidenced by the world's
utter shock and horror in the wake of the Columbia tragedy), safe
human cargo transportation will foreseeably always remain a
bottleneck.

Nope. In fact human space flight has got the safety angle _all_
wrong. It's easily demonstrated that the less people are killed
the more significant it is.
42,000 fatalities in road accidents in the USA? Not news.
295 fatalities in rail accidents? News
7 fatalities in space accidents? Mega news.

The obvious answer is that we need to get people up there,
and dying, in droves.

Heartless...

On 6 Oct 2004 10:59:58 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(AA Institute) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Paul Blay" wrote in message ...
"AA Institute" wrote ...
Cost is the *only* issue here. Since *one* human life is infinitely
more precious than a trillion dollars (as evidenced by the world's
utter shock and horror in the wake of the Columbia tragedy), safe
human cargo transportation will foreseeably always remain a
bottleneck.

Nope. In fact human space flight has got the safety angle _all_
wrong. It's easily demonstrated that the less people are killed
the more significant it is.
42,000 fatalities in road accidents in the USA? Not news.
295 fatalities in rail accidents? News
7 fatalities in space accidents? Mega news.

The obvious answer is that we need to get people up there,
and dying, in droves.

Heartless...

Brainless...

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:


42,000 fatalities in road accidents in the USA? Not news.
295 fatalities in rail accidents? News
7 fatalities in space accidents? Mega news.

The obvious answer is that we need to get people up there,
and dying, in droves.

Heartless...

Brainless...

Funny...

--
Martin

"AA Institute" wrote ...
"Paul Blay" wrote ...
"AA Institute" wrote ...
Cost is the *only* issue here. Since *one* human life is infinitely
more precious than a trillion dollars (as evidenced by the world's
utter shock and horror in the wake of the Columbia tragedy), safe
human cargo transportation will foreseeably always remain a
bottleneck.

Nope. In fact human space flight has got the safety angle _all_
wrong. It's easily demonstrated that the less people are killed
the more significant it is.
42,000 fatalities in road accidents in the USA? Not news.
295 fatalities in rail accidents? News
7 fatalities in space accidents? Mega news.

The obvious answer is that we need to get people up there,
and dying, in droves.

Heartless...

The correct equation isn't "Paul Blay" = Heartless but
"AA Institute" = Humourless

That said there was a significant (if far from unique) point
not very well hidden in my post. See if you can spot it.