On Oct 21, 9:44 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:08beb63c-e939-412d-b484-15efd8ced526@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > It has more than sufficient mass as is. Using heavy elements instead > > of wussy atmospheric elements would be a good start, whereas 0.1 bar > > should be doable, and perhaps as good as 1 bar on the continuously dim/ > > earthshine side once that moon has been relocated to Earth L1.
> Continuously dim/earthshine side? That about sums up the inside > of your head, and thus all of your theories.
> Idiot.
Think man, think. You really need to get yourself out of that cozy mainstream box of yours.
None of this is published in LeapFrog pop-up format.
> As suspected, you have nothing. Even the simple things > evade you.
> You are more "Jewish" than the Yids. Ironic, don't you think?
> Idiot.
I have lots to offer, but I don't have a caste system, much less slaves, nor do I perform human sacrifices. I must have flunked my required semester of Yid-101.
btw, there's nothing simple about any of this moon relocation thing.
> > > > > > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > > > > > The Big Idea /Geoengineering“Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > > > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > > > > > ~ BG
> > > > > > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > > > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > > > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > > > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > > > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > > > > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > > > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > > > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > > > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > > > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > > > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > > > > > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > > > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > > > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > > > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > > > > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > > > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > > > > > years.
> > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > MarkA > > > > > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > > > > > About eight o'clock
> > > > > > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > > > > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > > > > > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > > > > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > > > > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > > > > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > > > > > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > > > > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > > > > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > > > > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> > > > > Relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1 would become a multitasking > > > > > win-win for our environment as well as for utilizing of the moon > > > > > itself, as well as still allowing for my nifty LSE-CM/ISS would be > > > > > even so much better off because of the extra shade provided while > > > > > tethered at the new and greatly improved Zero Delta-V of Selene L1.
> > > > > ~ BG
> > > > And just think of all the jobs the project would create and Obama > > > > could take credit for!
> > > > Double-A
> > > Your "The Crappy Idea" is noted, as is your inability to see the full > > > potential of what needs to get done, at least sooner or later. (too > > > much later is not a good option)
> > > Sitting around and doing the usual Republican nothing, as such is not > > > an option unless you intend to hold those future Summer Olympics in > > > Antarctica.
> > And why not? Antarctica has a lot of good farmland just going to > > waste! And we are going to need another habitable continent for our > > burgeoning population to migrate to!
> The same can be said of Greenland. Poor and muddle class folks had > better learn how to swim, mostly because they'll not be able to afford > to own or rent high ground.
> > > You do realize we're talking about a good century of applied effort > > > for the task of relocating our moon to Earth L1. This is using a mass > > > of perhaps 1e6 tonnes that's tethered as centripetal tugging outward > > > from <2x L2. The 1e6 tonne mass would require some reaction thrust > > > from time to time (perhaps most of the time), though mostly for proper > > > alignment as it ever so gradually gives the necessary force on behalf > > > of moving our Selene/moon further away and slowing that sucker down to > > > 109 km/sec (roughly 10% of it's current velocity).
> > > Once accomplished, the million tonne mass can be either disposed of, > > > returned to the lunar surface, or made into a tethered Selene L2.1 > > > outpost so as to go along with the Selene L1.1 tethered outpost.
> > > ~ BG
> > Perhaps you could move enough mass to the Moon so it could hold a 1 > > bar atmosphere. Then you'd have something!
> > Double-A
> It has more than sufficient mass as is. Using heavy elements instead > of wussy atmospheric elements would be a good start, whereas 0.1 bar > should be doable, and perhaps as good as 1 bar on the continuously dim/ > earthshine side once that moon has been relocated to Earth L1.
> ~ BG
0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on the side not exposed to erosion by the
...
On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods.
At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
> Perhaps a great valley > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun?
Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine illuminated dark side would remain extremely cool until enough saltwater ice is deposited and the artificial lunar atmospheric cycle of the extremely hot side starts to circulate its solar obtained thermal energy towards the cold side, and obviously the cold dark side atmosphere gets drawn over the continuous terminator into the blazing sunlight, whereas the double IR that our physically dark moon by day is so well known for roasting our previous missions nearly to death.
All we'll need is to make a terminator band of perhaps +/- 1 km (2 km wide) or at most +/- 2 km for giving us <4 km width over the entire circumference that'll never change, into becoming our survivable habitat zone, and otherwise to hell with the face or back sides that are either too freaking cold or otherwise too hot. However, imagine how extra efficient those terminator situated Stirling Engine kinds of solar derived energy units are going to function at something close to 95% efficiency (roughly twice as good as our best PV alternatives).
> The air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, > just like the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> Double-A
With applied technology, similar to making artificial snow here on Earth, perhaps future Winter Olympics using the much colder salty snow could be accommodated. Terrific Earth and star gazing would be by itself worth the ticket to those Winter Olympics.
"Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in message news:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
> On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods.
> At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go > inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
> > Perhaps a great valley > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun?
> Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and > solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine > illuminated dark side would remain extremely cool until enough > saltwater ice is deposited and the artificial lunar atmospheric cycle > of the extremely hot side starts to circulate its solar obtained > thermal energy towards the cold side, and obviously the cold dark side > atmosphere gets drawn over the continuous terminator into the blazing > sunlight, whereas the double IR that our physically dark moon by day > is so well known for roasting our previous missions nearly to death.
> All we'll need is to make a terminator band of perhaps +/- 1 km (2 km > wide) or at most +/- 2 km for giving us <4 km width over the entire > circumference that'll never change, into becoming our survivable > habitat zone, and otherwise to hell with the face or back sides that > are either too freaking cold or otherwise too hot. However, imagine > how extra efficient those terminator situated Stirling Engine kinds of > solar derived energy units are going to function at something close to > 95% efficiency (roughly twice as good as our best PV alternatives).
> > The air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, > > just like the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > Double-A
> With applied technology, similar to making artificial snow here on > Earth, perhaps future Winter Olympics using the much colder salty snow > could be accommodated. Terrific Earth and star gazing would be by > itself worth the ticket to those Winter Olympics.
> ~ BG
Can you imagine the new records that will be set in the ski jump?
On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic + diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity should help do the trick.
Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi. However, at 75% O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2 would still be risky as hell.
It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2 would be acceptable.
> On Oct 22, 2:57 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods.
> > At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go > > inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
> > > Perhaps a great valley > > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun?
> > Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and > > solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine > > illuminated dark side would remain extremely cool until enough > > saltwater ice is deposited and the artificial lunar atmospheric cycle > > of the extremely hot side starts to circulate its solar obtained > > thermal energy towards the cold side, and obviously the cold dark side > > atmosphere gets drawn over the continuous terminator into the blazing > > sunlight, whereas the double IR that our physically dark moon by day > > is so well known for roasting our previous missions nearly to death.
> > All we'll need is to make a terminator band of perhaps +/- 1 km (2 km > > wide) or at most +/- 2 km for giving us <4 km width over the entire > > circumference that'll never change, into becoming our survivable > > habitat zone, and otherwise to hell with the face or back sides that > > are either too freaking cold or otherwise too hot. However, imagine > > how extra efficient those terminator situated Stirling Engine kinds of > > solar derived energy units are going to function at something close to > > 95% efficiency (roughly twice as good as our best PV alternatives).
> > > The air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, > > > just like the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > > Double-A
> > With applied technology, similar to making artificial snow here on > > Earth, perhaps future Winter Olympics using the much colder salty snow > > could be accommodated. Terrific Earth and star gazing would be by > > itself worth the ticket to those Winter Olympics.
> > ~ BG
> Can you imagine the new records that will be set in the ski jump?
> Double-A
Instead of measured in meters, they'd use kilometers.
> On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
> Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic + > diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity > should help do the trick.
> Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen > content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi.
Also 75 torr, or 3 inches of mercury. Isn't Google units conversion fun?
> However, at 75% > O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting > that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2 > would still be risky as hell.
So, have a strict fireproof building code. Moon rock shouldn't be combustible, although Moon dust in the air could be. When you light up your smoke, don't be surprised if it burns like a Roman candle!
> It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside > the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2 > would be acceptable.
> On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > > "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > > > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > > > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > > > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > > How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
> > Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic + > > diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity > > should help do the trick.
> > Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen > > content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi.
> Also 75 torr, or 3 inches of mercury. Isn't Google units conversion > fun?
> > However, at 75% > > O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting > > that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2 > > would still be risky as hell.
> So, have a strict fireproof building code. Moon rock shouldn't be > combustible, although Moon dust in the air could be. When you light > up your smoke, don't be surprised if it burns like a Roman candle!
> > It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside > > the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2 > > would be acceptable.
> > ~ BG
> Double-A
We could change our physiology over to breathing like a fish, and instead of 75% O2, how about sucking just a few percent of liquid h2o2 (sort of O2 fortified beer, aka "Bud Heavy") should do the trick.
> On Oct 22, 3:51 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > > > "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > > > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > > > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > > > > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > > > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > > > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > > > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > > > > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > > > > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > > > How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
> > > Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic + > > > diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity > > > should help do the trick.
> > > Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen > > > content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi.
> > Also 75 torr, or 3 inches of mercury. Isn't Google units conversion > > fun?
> > > However, at 75% > > > O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting > > > that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2 > > > would still be risky as hell.
> > So, have a strict fireproof building code. Moon rock shouldn't be > > combustible, although Moon dust in the air could be. When you light > > up your smoke, don't be surprised if it burns like a Roman candle!
> > > It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside > > > the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2 > > > would be acceptable.
> > > ~ BG
> > Double-A
> We could change our physiology over to breathing like a fish, and > instead of 75% O2, how about sucking just a few percent of liquid h2o2 > (sort of O2 fortified beer, aka "Bud Heavy") should do the trick.
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:efdc37f1-e13a-4e4d-b2ca-631bcf809d33@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go > inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
That O2 level might be high. Generally any concentration above 40% is not good, especially over long periods of time. Usually it's best to keep the O2 levels below 40% and displace with N2. Most studies are for the other extremes of pressure/O2 conditions. However, I don't know of any studies, offhand, that have actually tested for this scenario.
> Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and > solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine
<snip>
There you go with earthshine, again. How the fuck does the dark side of the moon get earthshine? It only gets sun/star/other planet shine.
On Oct 22, 7:43 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:efdc37f1-e13a-4e4d-b2ca-631bcf809d33@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > > On Oct 22, 2:12 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote: > > At 75% O2 and 25% N2, 0.1 bar would be sufficient, although as we go > > inside of that moon is where naked human could survive rather nicely.
> That O2 level might be high. Generally any concentration above 40% > is not good, especially over long periods of time. Usually it's best to keep > the O2 levels below 40% and displace with N2. Most studies are for the > other extremes of pressure/O2 conditions. However, I don't know of any > studies, offhand, that have actually tested for this scenario.
I agree, that something less than 50% O2 is best. (makes one wonder why Apollo-10 ever had such a lethal suit and cabin environment of 100% O2)
There are many high pressure test applications of >1% O2 and <99% H2 with not biodiversity compromises, but you'll need internet access in order to discover such research.
> > Once Selene is relocated to Earth L1, lots of viable options and > > solutions come into the picture, whereas the nicely earthshine
> <snip>
> There you go with earthshine, again. How the fuck does the dark > side of the moon get earthshine? It only gets sun/star/other planet > shine.
When it's relocated to Earth L1, because from then on the sun always shines on the far-side, and the otherwise permanent dark-side/near- side only gets a continuous illumination via planet shine(full-earth shine) to work with.
Earth-shine is actually rather bright, and it's of a good kind of bluish hue at that.
I know what earthshine is, I've seen it before. Though, you mentioned it in regards to the dark side, which does not get any.
Regarding O2, it is possible to breath concentrations up to 100%, short term, but there are various physiological processes that happen quickly and are generally not pleasant, or readily reversible, if the concentrations remain above 40%. Such as retinal damage and damage to the alveolar of the lungs.
> I know what earthshine is, I've seen it before. Though, you mentioned > it in regards to the dark side, which does not get any.
You're not following my advanced outside-of-box context as it pertains to this geoengineering, but then you've already made up your closed mindset.
Hint: dark-side is not the same thing as far-side.
> Regarding O2, it is possible to breath concentrations up to 100%, > short term, but there are various physiological processes that > happen quickly and are generally not pleasant, or readily reversible, > if the concentrations remain above 40%. Such as retinal damage > and damage to the alveolar of the lungs.
I fully agree with that, except as of decades ago.
> On Oct 22, 4:41 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 3:51 pm, Double-A <double...@hush.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 3:29 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 22, 3:05 pm, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> > > > > "Double-A" <double...@hush.com> wrote in messagenews:02499744-5efc-4935-992c-d0e0fbdb0835@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On Oct 21, 4:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 0.1 bars would be a little short of that required for human > > > > > > survivability, but not by much. The pressure atop Mt. Everest is only > > > > > > 0.34 bars, and is endurable for short periods. Perhaps a great valley > > > > > > could be blasted out on the Earthward side with nuclear devices. > > > > > > There air could settle and build higher pressure. It would also be on > > > > > > the side not exposed to erosion by the solar wind. But can you > > > > > > imagine how cold it would get on a side never exposed to the Sun? The > > > > > > air we would put there might freeze and snow to the ground, just like > > > > > > the atmosphere does on Pluto!
> > > > > How would the weak force of gravity create any pressure? :)
> > > > Those powerful electrostatic and the magnet (paramagnetic + > > > > diamagnetic) binding forces that are so much grater than gravity > > > > should help do the trick.
> > > > Otherwise the 0.1 bar atmosphere (if it had sufficient oxygen > > > > content), should more than do the trick at 1.5 psi.
> > > Also 75 torr, or 3 inches of mercury. Isn't Google units conversion > > > fun?
> > > > However, at 75% > > > > O2, God save us if there's ever a spark, especially if ever getting > > > > that lunar surface atmosphere up to 2.5 psi, whereas even at 50% O2 > > > > would still be risky as hell.
> > > So, have a strict fireproof building code. Moon rock shouldn't be > > > combustible, although Moon dust in the air could be. When you light > > > up your smoke, don't be surprised if it burns like a Roman candle!
> > > > It would be much safer if this human habitat were accomplished inside > > > > the moon, whereas higher pressure and a much lower percentage of O2 > > > > would be acceptable.
> > > > ~ BG
> > > Double-A
> > We could change our physiology over to breathing like a fish, and > > instead of 75% O2, how about sucking just a few percent of liquid h2o2 > > (sort of O2 fortified beer, aka "Bud Heavy") should do the trick.
> > ~ BG
> Heavy duty!
> Double-A
We need to save Earth, and my geoengineering has just the ticket.
Replacing N2 and CO2 with H2O2 is just for starters. However, crystal dry CO2 isn't half bad for initially building up that lunar atmosphere, and I'm certain that we'd get full public support for exporting 100 million tonnes of terrestrial CO2 to the moon (Big Energy alone might pay at least 100 billion per million tonnes, along with public matching funds would make it worth $200B/1e6 tonnes), along with whatever other nasty stuff that no one wants in their back yard, such as those most lethal elements from coal ash could bring that export tally of revenue up to a worth of $1T/1e6 tonnes).
Imagine all the dead folks we could deposit on the moon for as little as $10M each. That should generate a few other atmospheric gasses.
> > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > ~ BG
> > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > "There are many benefits:
> > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > years.
> > -- > > MarkA > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > About eight o'clock
> How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary heating?
Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that insignificant?
> > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > years.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock
> > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made > for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon > or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary > hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough > geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant > atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by > far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary > heating?
> Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that > insignificant?
If we ignore the notion of relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1, we're going to be in for one hell of a global warming ride, especially as we gradually get closer to the extremely vibrant Sirius star system, not to mention whatever Andromeda can manage to contribute.
> > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > years.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock
> > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made > for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon > or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary > hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough > geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant > atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by > far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary > heating?
> Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that > insignificant?
If we should ignore the suggestion of relocating our Selene/moon out to Earth L1, we're simply going to be in for one hell of a nasty global warming ride, especially as our geomagnetic force continues to fade and we gradually get closer to the extremely vibrant Sirius star system, not to mention whatever Andromeda can manage to contribute to our otherwise artificially assisted demise of global warming via human pollution and the ongoing conversions of mass into energy, that's only going to get a whole lot worse before getting any better.
> > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > years.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock
> > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made > for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon > or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary > hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough > geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant > atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by > far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary > heating?
> Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that > insignificant?
> ~ BG
Besides a big enough rock causing Mars to melt from the inside out (as nicely animated to us by our NASA), apparently those exact same laws of physics and whatever Newtonian laws simply don't apply to us and Sirius, or even that of our Selene/moon. Apparently an applied force of 2e20 N/sec is meaningless.
Mention geoengineering or those internal implosions at 500 km below the crust, and all the Usenet/newsgroup lights go out.
> > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > years.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock
> > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made > for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon > or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary > hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough > geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant > atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by > far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary > heating?
> Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that > insignificant?
> ~ BG
Why is this moon relocation thing so mainstream taboo?
Why are lunar space elevators and lunar space station tethers taboo?
Why are those regular laws of physics suddenly either taboo or conditional?
A tethered mass of 1e6 tonnes at 514,000 km and 1370 km/s = 372e6 tonnes pull.
The centripetal force of roughly 372e6 –g = ~360 million tonnes of tethered pull (3.6e11 kgf) is eventually going to move that moon of ours, and especially if this were given a century is perhaps even too much pull.
Don't tell me that I'll have to pull Darla and others of their knowledgeable and forward thinking kind in on this one, because I'll do just that.
> Why are lunar space elevators and lunar space station tethers taboo?
Serves no purpose.
> A tethered mass of 1e6 tonnes at 514,000 km and 1370 km/s = 372e6 > tonnes pull.
No tether strong enough to MOVE the moon.
> The centripetal force of roughly 372e6 –g = ~360 million tonnes of > tethered pull (3.6e11 kgf) is eventually going to move that moon of > ours, and especially if this were given a century is perhaps even too > much pull.
Once tethered, NORMAL orbital mechanics are through. Some day you'll figure out how all of this would get screwed up...then again...
> > Why are lunar space elevators and lunar space station tethers taboo?
> Serves no purpose.
Your insurmountably snookered and dumbfounded mindset is noted.
> > A tethered mass of 1e6 tonnes at 514,000 km and 1370 km/s = 372e6 > > tonnes pull.
> No tether strong enough to MOVE the moon.
Your insurmountably snookered and dumbfounded mindset is noted.
Btw; carbonado fiber at <491 GPa isn't exactly going to make a weak tether.
CVD artificial black diamonds Aggregated Diamond Nanorods, the Densest and Least Compressible Form of Carbon http://www.esrf.eu/news/spotlight/spotlight25nanorods/ KT = 491(3) GPa for ADNR (aggregated diamond nanorods)
> > The centripetal force of roughly 372e6 –g = ~360 million tonnes of > > tethered pull (3.6e11 kgf) is eventually going to move that moon of > > ours, and especially if this were given a century is perhaps even too > > much pull.
> Once tethered, NORMAL orbital mechanics are through. Some day > you'll figure out how all of this would get screwed up...then again...
Your insurmountably snookered and dumbfounded mindset is noted, as is your continued obfuscation upon everything that rocks your mainstream status quo boat. Denial of your denial can only take you so far in life...then again...
> > > > > > Who is kidding who? (apparently I’m not alone with my wizardly > > > > > > advanced/weird ideas)
> > > > > > As a very nicely eyecandy hyped topic within a very spendy National > > > > > > Geographic publication, and as such sounds and looks exactly along the > > > > > > lines of what my relocating of our Selene/moonout to Earth L1 is all > > > > > > about, except my idea is in so many ways a whole lot better.
> > > > > > However “When Yellowstone Explodes” (exposing Warhol’s “lake of fire”) > > > > > > it’s not hardly going to matter, as even the shading potential of > > > > > > creating <3.5% solar isolation via having our Selene/moonparked > > > > > > interactively within the halo station-keeping zone of our L1 may not > > > > > > be sufficient.
> > > > > > Not to mention those ever increasing meteor/asteroid encounters > > > > > > that’ll eventually become impacts, and the ever increasing volcanic > > > > > > and geothermal venting that’s continually adding serious insult to > > > > > > those of our artificial methods of global polluting, dimming and of > > > > > > course the expediting of our hydrocarbon depletion and ultimately > > > > > > affordable energy demise, mostly unfortunate for the rich and powerful > > > > > > because we’ll run ourselves out of such burnable stuff to hoard and > > > > > > profiteer at, whereas not even hard rock mining for uranium and > > > > > > thorium is going to save our global warming day of reckoning that’s > > > > > > already gotten past the point of no return, unless WWIII manages to > > > > > > thin the herd by 90%.
> > > > > > BTW; volcanic and geothermal activity is up by nearly 33% from just a > > > > > > few decades or possibly a century ago, though somewhat exponentially > > > > > > become greater as of most recently. Is Earth about ready to explode? > > > > > > (I don’t think so, but then we so often get to review only 0.1% of > > > > > > public funded science, so there’s really no telling). Perhaps Steven > > > > > > Chu had better extract as much geothermal energy as possible before > > > > > > that option falls off the table, or rather into the “lake of fire”.
> > > > > This topic is about "Shading The Earth", not "shading the Ear th" as > > > > > having been revised by mainstream media outsiders, so that my version > > > > > of this topic or concept wouldn't so easily show, kind of proves who's > > > > > really in charge of what regular folks get to read.
> > > > > Shading The Earth, except using our Selene/moon.
> > > > > The Big Idea / Geoengineering “Shading The Earth” /BradGuth
> > > > > "Shading The Earth"Guth > > > > > "Shading The Earth"BradGuth > > > > > "Shading The Earth" National Geographic
> > > > There would still be an ocean tide, except only as an exact 12 hour > > > > period and never changing except for that caused by the seasonal tilt > > > > of Earth. These ocean tides might even be as much as roughly half of > > > > what we currently have to deal with. Isn't that good, or what?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > > there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively > > > > negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position > > > > relative to the two massive bodies.
> > > > do you know what negligible means?
> > > > twobc (total waste of brain cells)guth
> > > Unlike your near worthless parrot reply of essentially obfuscation, > > > denial and do nothing mindset, at least my idea is worth accomplishing > > > for loads of valid reasons besides shading Earth < 3.5%.
> > > As it is, our Selene/moonisn't doing us any good whatsoever. If > > > anything it's only adding thermal, gamma, sodium and loads of physical > > > trauma to an already bad situation that's only getting worse. > > > Obviously you don't seem to care how badly Earth and all of what's > > > left of our biodiversity suffers. (you must be another kosher pretend- > > > Atheist, or perhaps something worse)
> > On Oct 9, 9:02 am, MarkA <t...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:58:59 -0700, *_//!!_//!!* wrote:
> > > > What are the Benefits of The Moon?
> > > > "There are many benefits:
> > > > The most important is that it keeps the earth from wobbling. Because > > > > the earth is tilted at 23 1/2 degrees, it would be very unstable > > > > unless the moon helped balance its axis of rotation.
> > > In fact, the moon *causes* the Earth to "wobble". The scientific term is > > > "precession". The Earth's axis oscillates with a period of about 26,000 > > > years.
> > > -- > > > MarkA > > > Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before > > > About eight o'clock
> > How very correct, whereas relocating our moon out to Earth L1 would > > only help to stabilize that pesky wobble.
> > The planet Venus lost its moon, and yet it’s doing perfectly fine and > > dandy (wobble free) as is, though it’s still extremely newish and > > subsequently geologically thin crusted and very much alive, perhaps > > because of once belonging to Sirius B.
> > There’s <2e9 tonnes of 3He (helium 3) within the atmosphere of Venus, > > and that means the planet itself is very much alive and loaded or > > saturated with those heavy radioactive elements, and thus unavoidably > > hosting those subsequent isotopes.
> Apparently, according to a spendy animated NASA infomercial as made > for TV and naturally public funded, whereas a relatively large moon > or asteroid orbiting Mars can cause horrific internal planetary > hearing, enough to thaw everything in sight and even cause enough > geothermal and gaseous ventings to feed and sustain a significant > atmosphere, and yet the largest moon by ratio to its planet being by > far that of our Selene/moon isn't the least bit capable of planetary > heating?
> Is the Selene/moon tidal radii force of 2e20 N/sec really all that > insignificant?
> ~ BG
This topic of Geoengineering our way out of this global warming mess, by way of 3% shading Earth with our moon is actually a truly complex but otherwise surmountable issue for a supercomputer simulation, but otherwise for the moment we can at least discuss, argue or rant our way through the initial concept and it’s starting point, whereas we begin to pull that nasty moon of ours further away. However, we also need to take the human mindset and its mainstream status quo that’s usually naysay into account.
Why is this moon relocation thing such a big deal and so mainstream taboo?
Why are lunar space elevators and lunar space station tethers still taboo?
Why are those regular laws of physics suddenly either taboo or conditional?
A tethered mass of 1e6 tonnes at 514,000 km and 1370 km/s = 372e6 tonnes pull.
The centripetal force of roughly 372e6 –g = ~360 million tonnes of tethered pull (3.6e11 kgf) is eventually going to move that moon of ours, and especially if this effort were given a century is perhaps even too much initial pull. However, as the orbital velocity of our Selene/moon eventually slows down, so will the amount of this tethered pull reduce.
CVD artificial black diamonds (also known as carbonado), as easily manufactured within the extreme vacuum of space, will give us this kind of robust tether as needed, although even basalt fiber at 4.84 GPa is doable.
Don't tell me that I'll have to draw upon the advanced expertise of Darla and others of their knowledgeable and forward thinking kind on this one, because I'll do just that.
|
