Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
The 0.1~1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 151 - 151 of 151 - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals) < Older 
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
BradGuth  
View profile  
 More options Nov 6, 10:50 pm
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy, sci.geo.geology, sci.astro, sci.space.policy, sci.physics
From: BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 03:50:37 -0800 (PST)
Local: Fri, Nov 6 2009 10:50 pm
Subject: The 0.1~1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
On Sep 22, 7:40 am, Greatest Mining Pioneer of Australia of all Times

Since I’ve gotten nothing but the usual grief and avoidance about our
hollow moon, I’ve revised this topic from “The 1~10% hollow moon” to
“The 0.1~1% hollow moon”.  Not that it matters, because the mainstream
still isn’t buying any of it, nor allowing media to pick up on any
notions of such.

Water exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the vacuum as found at
Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something
less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much
regardless of its volume and original mass.  Therefore, the extremely
weak Newtonian force of gravity or molecular binding force isn’t
necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid
element itself represents a zero delta-V and especially being lost to
that solar wind when situated within such an extreme vacuum.  If
there’s anything holding a given molecule of h2o together, it’s those
strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic
binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that
doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked
pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas
artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if there’s a shell or
artificial energy field of some kind).

The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s so
mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely terrific
shell.  Within or especially under that shell is where life as we know
it could with some technology manage to survive, as well as manage to
contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more.
At 0.1% hollow (within geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily
excavated to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of  worthy habitat
volume, and thereby maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t
be an insurmountable problem.

With near zero gravity within the offset core of our extremely unusual
moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid
core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly
compacted) substance that's sandwiched between that offset core and
the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt
crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation that our
Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.

Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were
limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust
protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and
otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of
2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as
representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would
make a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our lifeboat)

The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt
crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like
pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as
is.  In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.

Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their
diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a
thick layer of protective ice.  Of somewhat newer and much smaller
diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%,
with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of <
2:1.  However, one of the most recent LRO discovered craters or
possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small is also
suggesting as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other
words a significant vertical hole or cave like formation).

The 0.1~1% hollow moon / Brad Guth


    Reply    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages < Older 
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google