Re: How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
> For instance, compared to our "space station".

The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. Above the
LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
<shrug>

The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. Above the
Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
per year on the average. Any solar activity will in addition sharply
increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. <shrug>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response

<shrug>

[John Gogo]

The Moon is attainable by our present day technology. What if we
established our base underground to avoid the RADs?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Not at all. You've lost your marbles.
Stephen Hawking claims that same stupidity...
Give a price per person on the moon and see what you get...

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

> What if we
> established our base underground to avoid the RADs?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[John Gogo]

If there is a high RADs- then there should be a way to harness this
energy on the Moon.

[Brad Guth]

Yes, underground is a reasonably safe bet.

Robotic TBM's can help make that underground base a reality.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Brad Guth]

The moon gives off gamma, so that perhaps triggering thorium into
fission isn't going to be nearly as tough as once thought.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Perhaps in the ideal world there should be, but in the real world there
is no usefull energy to be had.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics John Gogo <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Given the amount of "stuff" needed to survive on the moon and the expense
of getting the "stuff" there, shielding is a rather trivial nit in the
overall endeavor.

[Sam Wormley]

The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
to fit the niche that it occupies.

Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
damages molecules, by two things:
1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind
2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
rays from the sun.

It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
just to keep from dying.

Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.

Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.

[Brad Guth]

That moon gives off a good trillion fold more gamma/m2 than our sun.

Once a few meters underground, it'll become safer within the moon than
walking on Earth.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/12 11:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> That moon gives off a good trillion fold more gamma/m2 than our sun.

Cite your data source, Brad.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 9, 9:07 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

Once a few meters into that physically dark and paramagnetic lunar
basalt, you'd be safer from radiation than here on Earth.

Btw; our moon gives off a million fold more gamma/m2 than our sun.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/12 11:31 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
>> > to fit the niche that it occupies.
>> >
>> > Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
>> > damages molecules, by two things:
>> > 1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind
>> > 2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
>> > rays from the sun.
>> >
>> > It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
>> > to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
>> > just to keep from dying.
>> >
>> > Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
>> > is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
>> > air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.
>> >
>> > Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.
> Once a few meters into that physically dark and paramagnetic lunar
> basalt, you'd be safer from radiation than here on Earth.

Good air, food, water and temperatures I resume!

[Brad Guth]

Search: moon gamma
Search: sun gamma

Of course the sun has 1.6e5 times more surface area to work with, so
perhaps a trillion to one isn't any too far fetched.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Feb 9, 6:01 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 5:32 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
> > below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions. Above the
> > LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
> > <shrug>
>
> > The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
> > In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year. Above the
> > Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
> > per year on the average. Any solar activity will in addition sharply
> > increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts. <shrug>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response
>
> > <shrug>
>
> The Moon is attainable by our present day technology.

Well, you have to use your scientific understandings to expose lies.
<shrug>

> What if we
> established our base underground to avoid the RADs?

You have to get there first. The Apollo command module only has 0.3g/
cm^2 of shielding at best made of aluminum honey comb filled with
epoxy. These Apollo astronauts were basically naked to radiation
exposure. Do you know how heavy a spacecraft shielded with the
required amount of lead would weigh?

[Sam Wormley]

Doesn't solve the air, food, water, temperature control problems of
a hostile environment.

[Sam Wormley]

There's nothing hot enough on the moon to produce any gamma radiation,
leaving only natural radioactivity similar to on the earth.

The primary source of gamma radiation on the surface of the moon comes
from the solar corona.

[Brad Guth]

Yes within reason, and otherwise technically manageable.

Inside of that moon could be or become near Eden worthy.

[Sam Wormley]

Just like down in the coal mines here on earth--right Brad?

[G=EMC^2]

If GOP-Mafia did not scrape the great Saturn V we would have had a
base on the Moon. No need of Rube Goldberg shuttles or pink elephant
SSI with their $25,000,000 toilets. We can thank Nixon,and Walter
Annenberg for srealing 2 billion from NASA for 40 years,and killing a
base on the Moon. Sad but true TreBert

[Robert Clark]

I'm more optimistic on the question. A big discovery is the finding
of ice deposits near the lunar poles. This could supply both water and
oxygen for a lunar colony. Note by hydroponics you could grow food in
water only. You would need fertilizer. But another recent discovery is
that of organics in the permanently shadowed craters along with the
water delivered comets. Quite likely this could be used for
fertilizer.


Bob Clark

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/12 12:58 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 10:01 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/9/12 11:31 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 9:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Sam wrote:
>>>>>> The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
>>>>>> to fit the niche that it occupies.
>>>>>> Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
>>>>>> damages molecules, by two things:
>>>>>> 1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar
>>>>>> wind
>>>>>> 2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
>>>>>> rays from the sun.
>>>>>> It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
>>>>>> to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and
>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>> just to keep from dying.
>>>>>> Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
>>>>>> is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
>>>>>> air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.
>>>>>> Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.
>>>
Brad wrote:
>>>> Once a few meters into that physically dark and paramagnetic lunar
>>>> basalt, you'd be safer from radiation than here on Earth.
>>>
Sam wrote:
>>> Good air, food, water and temperatures I resume!
>>

Brad wrote:
>> Yes within reason, and otherwise technically manageable.
>> Inside of that moon could be or become near Eden worthy.
>

Sam wrote:
> Just like down in the coal mines here on earth--right Brad?
>

hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha... LOL & ROTFLMAO.
You guys sound like Ersatz-script writers for "True Lies", with
one of you remembering how it turned out for Schwarzenegger
in his real life, here on earth... Thanks for the laughs, guys...
ahahaha... ahahahahanson

[bob haller]

>   Bob Clark- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

to do anything in space low cost to earth orbit is essential.....

hopefully space X can do it.

but how to justify a moon base is a bigger issue.

would it be a 2 man encaptment? or a luxury tourism destination?

[Brad Guth]

You cam make a TBM excavated area as fancy or as stupid as you like.

Once into a km depth of that extremely paramagnetic and physically
tough lunar basalt crust, whatever's outside (hot, cold, radiated or
getting badly pulverized) is kind of meaningless. Even from 0.1 km
depth it's probably good enough.

[Brad Guth]

Your lack of proper science and apparent inability to even search for
it is noted.

Our sun is not a very good source of gamma, unless it's running out of
hydrogen and getting into a nova or helium flashover phase.

[Brad Guth]

One of the ultimate prices we get to pay for going off-world, is the
accumulative full-body radiations of all the worse kinds of those
potentially lethal spectrums. With medications of steroids and stem
cells, the body can manage to repair some or even most of the damage,
although not everyone is going to achieve the same benefits.

Astronaut Janice Voss takes a 40+ year hit off her previously above
average healthy life, as having died of breast cancer after being full-
body radiated for only 49 days worth of shuttle orbiting exposure of
her otherwise healthy 55 year life. Sure thing, our NASA/Apollo guys
all managed to get zilch worth of radiation while protected on average
with only half as much shielding, as well as spending hours going each
way though parts of our lethal Van Allen belts, orbiting our naked
moon plus spending a day on its physically dark, naked and gamma
radiating surface while walking upon that considerably paramagnetic
metallicity surface, that by day is not only extremely hot but also
functions as a good anticathode by giving off those pesky gamma and
hard X-rays.

Perhaps like all of their Kodak film that was so unusually rad-hard,
their dosimeters were equally acting rad-hard. But at least so far
they’ve been extremely lucky, by not having experienced anything the
least bit negative in consequences from their great exposures to
solar, cosmic and lunar secondary gamma and X-rays, nor anything
related to their portion of time spent within parts of those Van Allen
belts, especially since the exit and return phase wasn’t nearly polar
enough to avoid some of that higher dosage.

Of course there’s still no objective instrumentation data pertaining
to the hard science of those Apollo missions, other than having to
take their interpretation as the one and only last word on
everything. It’s kind of funny how so much of our spendy mission data
got lost and/or tossed out with the garbage.

[Brad Guth]

The Saturn V was indeed a super terrific Zionist Nazi engineered
machine, which only proves how advanced they were at that time.
Nowadays, we can't seem to duplicate nor much less improve upon it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/12 3:43 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Feb 9, 11:18 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/10/12 12:58 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> >
>>> > > Inside of that moon could be or become near Eden worthy.
>> >
>> > Just like down in the coal mines here on earth--right Brad?
> You cam make a TBM excavated area as fancy or as stupid as you like.
>
> Once into a km depth of that extremely paramagnetic and physically
> tough lunar basalt crust, whatever's outside (hot, cold, radiated or
> getting badly pulverized) is kind of meaningless. Even from 0.1 km
> depth it's probably good enough.

Perhaps they will send 12-year-olds to work the moon mines
12 hours a day seven days a week. Oh, maybe that's in China.

[Sam Wormley]

I admit I was wrong, Brad, as cosmic rays striking the moon creates
a larger flux of gamma than the flux from the sun's corona.

> THE GAMMA-RAY ALBEDO OF THE MOON
> http://www.stanford.edu/~imos/papers/2007ApJ...670.1467M.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/12 4:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> One of the ultimate prices we get to pay for going off-world, is the
> accumulative full-body radiations of all the worse kinds of those
> potentially lethal spectrums. With medications of steroids and stem
> cells, the body can manage to repair some or even most of the damage,
> although not everyone is going to achieve the same benefits.

Cite your data source for this, Brad!

[Brad Guth]

Just like your mainstream parrot self, I’ll just keep repeating the
same old information so that it’ll become the only truth that you ever
need to know about.

One of the ultimate prices we’ll get to pay for going off-world, is
the accumulative full-body radiations from all the worse kinds of
those potentially lethal spectrums. However, with proper medications
including steroids and stem cells, the body can manage to repair some
or even most of the cellular DNA damage, although not everyone is
going to achieve the same benefits because there’s no good way of
telling which cells have been most damaged until the natural rejection
process (aka cancer) sets in.

Astronaut Janice Voss takes a 40+ year hit off her previously above
average healthy life, as having died of breast cancer after being full-

body radiated for only 49 days worth of shuttle orbiting exposure to
her otherwise healthy 55 year short life. Sure thing, our NASA/Apollo

guys all managed to get zilch worth of radiation while protected on
average with only half as much shielding, as well as spending hours
going each way though parts of our lethal Van Allen belts, orbiting
our naked moon plus spending a day on its physically dark, naked and
gamma radiating surface while walking upon that considerably
paramagnetic metallicity surface, that by day is not only extremely
hot but also functions as a good anticathode by giving off those pesky
gamma and hard X-rays.

Perhaps like all of the Apollo era of using Kodak film that was so

unusually rad-hard, their dosimeters were equally acting rad-hard.

But at least so far they’ve all been extremely lucky, by not having

experienced anything the least bit negative in consequences from their
great exposures to solar, cosmic and lunar secondary gamma and X-rays,
nor anything related to their portion of time spent within parts of
those Van Allen belts, especially since the exit and return phase
wasn’t nearly polar enough to avoid some of that higher dosage.

Of course there’s still no objective instrumentation data pertaining
to the hard science of those Apollo missions, other than having to
take their interpretation as the one and only last word on
everything. It’s kind of funny how so much of our spendy mission data
got lost and/or tossed out with the garbage.

Once those mostly robotic TBMs get us a km underground, such as within
our physically dark and otherwise paramagnetic basalt tough (nearly
carbonado worthy) moon, is where the outside environment doesn’t
count. We should even be relatively safe and cozy at 0.1 km depth.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/12 10:25 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Feb 10, 5:13 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/10/12 4:27 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> One of the ultimate prices we get to pay for going off-world, is the
>>> accumulative full-body radiations of all the worse kinds of those
>>> potentially lethal spectrums. With medications of steroids and stem
>>> cells, the body can manage to repair some or even most of the damage,
>>> although not everyone is going to achieve the same benefits.
>>
>> Cite your data source for this, Brad!
>
> Just like your mainstream parrot self, I’ll just keep repeating the
> same old information so that it’ll become the only truth that you ever
> need to know about.
>

As I thought--No data.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 10, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>    As I thought--No data.

Exactly; where's our NASA/Apollo era instrument data, Sam?

Silly me, they really didn't give any sh*t about science, did they.

How is it that our NASA/Apollo era had no problems whatsoever with
radiation issues?

-

Just like your mainstream parrot self, I’ll just keep repeating the
same old information so that it’ll become the only truth that you ever
need to know about.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

How brittle do metals become at these temperatures? Access maybe
harder than we would hope it to be.

Living on the moon/Mars would mean living in a hole/cave/tunnel
and sending a remote controlled mechanical avatar out
into the harsh vacuum world to do what is needed.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 9, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
> > For instance, compared to our "space station".
>
> The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
> below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions.  Above the
> LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
> <shrug>
>
> The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
> In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year.  Above the
> Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
> per year on the average.  Any solar activity will in addition sharply
> increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response
>
> <shrug>

Before doing a surface or underground moon base, the Earth-moon L1
should be established as our outpost/gateway or depot/oasis (aka
Clarke Station or LSE-CM/ISS).

[bob haller]

On Feb 11, 12:39 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"

> into the harsh vacuum world to do what is needed.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

think transhab......

[Brad Guth]

> think transhab......

TBMs can carve out as many km3 of the moon as you like.

We're talking of enormously large volumes of open space, not to
mention how many natural geode pockets are encountered.

[Val Kraut]

I think the first thing you have to do is define "base" and the role it
plays either by itself or a part of a larger plan. Possible bases could;
provide for manufacturing of units such as solar arrays that could be
shipped to GEO for large solar power stations, other industrial processes
that would prove profitable using lunar materials in the Lunar environment,
as a test bed for expeditions to Mars, as a scientific station that could
perform tasks not feasible from Earth or orbit, as a staging point and
material manufacturing point to support further solar system exploration,
and many others. They're all different. Some may not be resaonable as
detertmined by additional studies. But each has different aspects such as
crew size, crew skills, equipment types, requirements for location and local
features such as a lava tube to build a habitat in. The list goes on. Each
option has it's associated cost that has to be justified.

One of the traps we get into is "the moon for everybody". So there has to be
exploration, science bases, long and short range rovers, astronomy stations,
manufacturing prototypes - all in the one program. If we can't justify doing
some lunar science now because other solar system science has a higher
priority - why does it all of a sudden become a cause celeb when the lunar
base is designed. And maybe the real role of the moon is a "whistle stop" on
the way to Mars, a short term test base and then - good bye for now.

We could have established a short term base at the end of Apollo - Two
saturn V rockets - one with a CSM and Crewed LM, and one with a LM habitat
and a LM cargo vehicle delivering a pressurized Rover. Apollo did multiple
launches in a year. The LM descent stages existed. Grumman had a prototype
pressurized rover being tested at their Calverton Facility before the first
landing was accomplished. The Rover and habitat could have been reused by
subsequent crews.

The entire LM design, development and test through 1st landing was under 6
years. AND significant changes were incorporated along the way. NASA has
done significant studies and tests of habitats etc. One would think if NASA
uses the Industrial Base that has real hardware production experience, as
opposed to maximizing in-house skills, and really utilized Apollo
experience, and dropped the requirement to use shuttle parts whether they
make sense or not, one would think 5 or 6
years is not unreasonable.

Val Kraut

[Brad Guth]

Once the big TBMs get us into the moon, it becomes another gold-rush
and human expansion era.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

On Feb 11, 10:19 am, "Val Kraut" <marv...@optonline.net> wrote:

I'd suspect astronomy is best left in space. Landing somewhat heavy
equipment
would be a true challenge.

The moon will have dust issues in addition to surface radiation
issues.
I suppose if there is water, it might be possible to have a shower of
the moonsuited workers to prevent dust coming in. Or a waste gas
wash outside in the vacuum?

I wonder what the average temperature is in the Moon a 100 feet down?
Or how deep one would have to go to find the average temperature zone?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 11, 2:02 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"

> Or how deep one would have to go to find the average temperature zone?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The lunar family is comming?

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 11, 2:02 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"
<trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:

the geophysical thermogradient of that moon shouldn't be too hard to
figure out.

Once 0.1 km underground should be getting quite cozy, regardless if
it's day or night on the surface. Going deeper past the 1 km depth
and it should be getting almost suitable for a naked Goldilocks to
frolic about. As the TBMs go deeper it'll only get better for quite
some distance. Once cutting faster below the paramagnetic basalt
crust, it's anyone's guess as to what those mostly robotic machines
will cut into.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

On Feb 11, 2:49 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Instead of a nuclear family?

One might imagine a complex heated and by solar energy though
it would need a great storage system for the long night.
Some have proposed a polar colony but I wonder how the
lunar tilt is to the sun?

The moon seems a place to strip mine if it has resources not a place
for a true permanent
colony.....................................................Trig

[alie...@gmail.com]

You think too small, Brad.

http://www.esm.vt.edu/~sdross/superhighway/lunar-l1-gateway-big.jpg

Nuclear rockets can get us access to the entire Sol system. We still
need to solve the organic consumables issue for human travel though.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Jonathan]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:NfidnQRKBsORO6nS...@mchsi.com...

> The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
> to fit the niche that it occupies.
>
> Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
> damages molecules, by two things:
> 1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind
> 2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
> rays from the sun.
>
> It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
> to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
> just to keep from dying.
>
> Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
> is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
> air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.
>
> Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.

Right. Manned missions add a couple of zeros to the cost and maybe more
importantly, a zero to the time it takes.
The difference between a new rover landing on Mars, and
a manned mission is on the order of four years vs forty years.

And that's a very optimistic forty years.

Who in their right minds thinks such an expensive project
would be faithfully funded by the next six or eight political
administrations? And if most of the voters would be dead
by then any ways, why would anyone care?

Connect NASA and low-earth orbit to a project that has
the potential to solve the long term energy problem
for the entire planet, and climate change, in a ..single project.
While making America the energy "Saudi Arabia".

Space Solar Power!

But Big Aero wants to start up a production line of
competition-free Saturn V's, and gold-plated lunar landers.
With nothing to show the taxpayers in the end
except some pretty pictures, rocks and dust.

NASA wants more gilded safaris for the select few.
When a plan that could change the world is sitting
on the shelf, collecting dust.

NASA Study
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
(program canceled by Pres G W Bush in 2002)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space Energy Inc (private start-up corporation)
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Pentagon Study
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm



s

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/11/12 7:29 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Once 0.1 km underground should be getting quite cozy, regardless if
> it's day or night on the surface.

That's what it's like for coal miners 0.1 km underground -- quite

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/12/12 1:04 AM, trigonom...@gmail.com | wrote:
> The moon seems a place to strip mine if it has resources not a place

> for a true permanent...

Orders a magnitude cheaper to strip mine in your own back yard, Brad!

[Val Kraut]

One might imagine a complex heated and by solar energy though
it would need a great storage system for the long night.
Some have proposed a polar colony but I wonder how the
lunar tilt is to the sun?

Very small tilt - there are mountains around the south pole crater
shackleton that get sun light better than 50 % of the Lunar day. Also have
nearby water in perpetual darkness and other aspects that make the pole a
choice site. Although relatively cold, it has less of a temperature range
than an equatorial site - this makes equipment design easier.

Val Kraut

[Brad Guth]

Actually, William Mook (aka Mokenergy and Mokaerospace) can get us
safely to/from our moon at not 10% the cost of what our NASA
requires. The fission rocket is doable as is, and fusion can't be all
that far fetched. However, LH2/LOx is really cheap fuel, as well as
HTP+ synfuel hydrocarbons make for a terrific first stage that'll
outperform the Saturn-V by another good 1.5:1.

Those necessary organic consumables can be efficiently robotic fly-by-
rocket delivered monthly, weekly or even daily if need be.

[Brad Guth]

Processing the metallicity and other elements out of that paramagnetic
basalt rock via solar derived energy by day, will more than last
throughout the surface cryogenic nighttime. (via terrific planetshine,
that surface nighttime isn't actually all that cold, nor dimly
illuminated)

Besides, TBMs excavating underground makes whatever's a hard vacuum,
hot, cold, irradiated or getting pulverized outside kind of
meaningless.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

On Feb 12, 6:51 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/12/12 1:04 AM, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote:
>
> > The moon seems a place to strip mine if it has resources not a place
> > for a true permanent...
>
>    Orders a magnitude cheaper to strip mine in your own back yard, Brad!

Currently of course. I'd assume the resources would either be high
value or
aimed away from Earth. And yes currently this is just a dream at best.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

So a polar colony it is.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 12, 11:30 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"

It depends on how much global inflation, environment trashing and
civilian blood you're willing to keep giving up for those terrestrial
limited resources. Obviously Sam and others of their mainstream
status-quo kind could care less about global inflation, trashing the
environment and all of the civilian blood letting is apparently a good
thing.

[John Gogo]

Shackelton, I like the name of it.

[John Gogo]

This would equate creating something out of nothing.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> This would equate creating something out of nothing.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

That's not the job of science...

[John Gogo]

On Feb 12, 4:09 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

What is the job of science?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> What is the job of science?- Hide quoted text -

To discover and understand the Intelligent Design; which is before the
mind of man all the way back to the Beginning of time.

>
> - Show quoted text -

We are people so stupid as to believe that we will need the
rediculous?

Mitchell Raemsch; the prize

[John Gogo]

On Feb 12, 4:09 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Brad Guth]

And let the good times role. The last guy or gal standing gets to
turn out the lights and shut the door.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 12, 6:49 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/12 7:29 PM,BradGuthwrote:

>
> > Once 0.1 km underground should be getting quite cozy, regardless if
> > it's day or night on the surface.
>
>    That's what it's like for coal miners 0.1 km underground -- quite
>    cozy, regardless if it's day or night on the surface.

Exactly, and those mostly robotic TBMs could eventually make 10% of
the interior of our moon accessible and even quite livable. Going 60+
km deep could even become a little too cozy.

[Marvin the Martian]

So, what does the taxpayer get out of this moon base?

Why should the taxpayer (of either China or India) pay for such a thing?
What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
going?

[bob haller]

even robotic TBMs will require people t service the machines and
replace the cutting wheels. they wear out fast

[bob haller]

On Feb 13, 9:21 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 13, 1:25 am, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 12, 6:49 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 2/11/12 7:29 PM,BradGuthwrote:
>
> >> > > Once 0.1 km underground should be getting quite cozy, regardless if
> >> > > it's day or night on the surface.
>
> >> >    That's what it's like for coal miners 0.1 km underground -- quite
> >> >    cozy, regardless if it's day or night on the surface.
>
> >> Exactly, and those mostly robotic TBMs could eventually make 10% of
> >> the interior of our moon accessible and even quite livable.  Going 60+
> >> km deep could even become a little too cozy.
>

> >even robotic TBMs will require people t service the machines and
> >replace the cutting wheels. they wear out fast
>

> This is hilarious coming from the guy who thinks robots are the answer
> to everything.
>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
>  only stupid."
>                             -- Heinrich Heine- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

TBMs are very complex machines. robots can do lots of stuff but boring
tunnels wouldnt be happening anytime soon.

however robotic bulldozers etc could certinally open a trench and bury
a habitat

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 13, 3:30 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:31:59 -0800, trigonometry1...@gmail.com | wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 7:17 am, "Val Kraut" <marv...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> One might imagine a complex heated and by solar energy though it would
> >> need a great storage system for the long night. Some have proposed a
> >> polar colony but I wonder how the lunar tilt is to the sun?
>
> >> Very small tilt - there are mountains around the south pole crater
> >> shackleton that get sun light better than 50 % of the Lunar day. Also
> >> have nearby water in perpetual darkness and other aspects that make the
> >> pole a choice site. Although relatively cold, it has less of a
> >> temperature range than an equatorial site - this makes equipment design
> >> easier.
>
> >>                                                             Val
> >>                                                             Kraut
>
> > So a polar colony it is.
>
> So, what does the taxpayer get out of this moon base?

How about a viable future.
How about terrific job security.
How about offering a much less traumatized global environment.
How about supplying terrific bling and pure metallicity that's
unlimited.
How about fewer wars because a surplus of clean energy and/or energy
related products becomes too cheap to meter.
How about offering unlimited space for humans to expand into.
How about thinking of others, as becoming the new mainstream status
quo.

>
> Why should the taxpayer (of either China or India) pay for such a thing?
> What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
> base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
> going?

If you only want to think of the negatives, then why not just kill
yourself, and get your negativity all over with?

Have you ever once considered the positive/constructive benefits of
accomplishing and exploiting our moon?

That physically dark and naked moon of such a terrifically thick and
fused paramagnetic basalt crust will easily more than pay for itself,
and because it's so nearby and easily gotten to/from (without a hitch
or any fret according to our old NASA/Apollo era) is certainly a whole
lot better option than the best of whatever Mars has to offer.

Once the moon itself has TBMs working underground, and the LSE-CM/ISS
(tethered Clarke Station and/or Boeing OASIS) are established, makes
exploiting other planets like Mars worth doing.

Are you saying you're not smart enough to figure out how to even
establish the Earth-moon L1 as our OASIS/depot/gateway?

How about establishing the extremely nearby Venus L2 oasis/outpost/
gateway before going for Mars?

Are you afraid of what we'll find on or within our moon, or is it
those unusual structures on Venus that still has you confused?

Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <sbGdnX61_LPaaaXS...@giganews.com>,

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

About the only thing that could remotely pay off is if we found evidence
of past or current alien presence there. Then, all bets are off!

[Brad Guth]

Most of that TBM service work can also be tele-robotic managed,
although some crew will be necessary. However, once operating
underground, it'll be just like tunneling here on Earth, except
better. Robotic excavations of the TBM spoils for additional
metallicity processing before the finished metals are exported back to
Earth, as such might require a greater number of crew per given
tonnage of processed lunar basalt.

Obviously lunar TBMs would be entirely different machines than
terrestrial versions.

[Brad Guth]

Powerful lasers and voracious TBMs could have started digging into
that moon as of more than a decade ago. Processing the TBM spoils is
something ideal for robotics.

Processing metals out of that moon rock is even way better when
surrounded by a hard vacuum. Obviously you'd need to know and utilize
the benefits of what a hard vacuum has to offer, and our Fred doesn't
know shit.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/13/12 1:46 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

> Processing metals out of that moon rock is even way better when
> surrounded by a hard vacuum. Obviously you'd need to know and utilize
> the benefits of what a hard vacuum has to offer, and our Fred doesn't
> know shit.

Apollo astronauts found dust o be *very* problematical.

[dump...@hotmail.com]

Since we're on the subject of moon bases:

"They've been rebooted, re-imagined and uncut, but now
Space 1999 is getting its own on-screen revival next to
sci-fi classics Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek and Star
Wars.

ITV Studios America and HDFilms are reported to be
developing Space: 2099, a "contemporary re-imagination"
of the Saturday morning staple from the Gerry and Sylvia
Anderson power duo who gave us the stylish and
practical Eagle transporter and a generation of men unable
to resist the temptation to turn any harmless staple gun
they found laying around into a sidearm."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/10/space_1999_re_imagination/

[Brad Guth]

Apollo dust was very low density, crystal dry, highly reflective and
yet ideally clumping for terrific surface tension, typically it was
only a few cm deep on top of fused bedrock (they found no lose bedrock
or impact shards to easily penetrate with their probes), and it was
never the least bit UV reactive, as well as nothing within, under or
detected within several km radii as anticathode worthy. Apollo moon
dust wasn't even the least bit indicating of sodium, and it was
extensively monochromatic (including most all of its meteorites were
extremely few and far between, of low density and kind of
monochromatic grayish instead of being the least bit dark).

In fact, the NASA/Apollo moon turned out to be the least metallicity
and one of the most colorless items in our solar system.

Image interpreting is not always as easy as it sounds or looks, but if
you have an open mind it'll make the task a whole lot more
productive. By first scanning over a large area of Venus before
zooming in on anything unusual, will become a productive method. In
other words, don't just focus yourself upon whatever specific
enlargement that I've accomplished, because if you don't know what the
rest of Venus is supposed to look like, you will not be prepared to
understand what isn't natural.

Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj

[John Gogo]

On Feb 9, 11:07 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
> to fit the niche that it occupies.
>
> Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
> damages molecules, by two things:
>    1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind
>    2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
>       rays from the sun.
>
> It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
> to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
> just to keep from dying.
>
> Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
> is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
> air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.
>
> Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.

Sam says: It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where
we have
to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
just to keep from dying.

This is what we do now on the space station.

[Brad Guth]

All off-world missions will have to take supplies and get replenished.

Even if the moon base was costing us 100 billion per month to set up
and operate, the eventual trillion dollar return per month on that
investment should make it worth doing.

It might take us 20 months to accomplish what we set out to do. After
that, it's all gravy.

[John Gogo]

It would be all gravy wouldn't it?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yep, at great expense, paid for by 5 different space agencies, and
with essentially zero payback for a location basically trivial to
get back and forth from as compared to the moon.

[John Gogo]

On Feb 13, 11:24 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

I agree. With the moon having its own orbit- we can ride on this
satellite to pay dirt.

[Brad Guth]

It would by that time, of 20+ months and 2+ trillion invested into
exploiting our moon would have ironed out most of the bugs. No doubt,
as the TBMs go deeper and especially once getting near the bottom or
below the fused basalt crust could be a few surprises. However,
detailed 3D mapping of its interior would have eliminated most of the
unknowns before those TBMs get too close to any situation of potential
risk.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 13, 9:24 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

To/from the moon is mostly (99.9%) coasting. Perfection fly-by-rocket
landers already exist, and the Saturn-V can easily be improved and
scaled up to deploy at least twice as much payload.

$100 billion per month would accomplish quite a bit.

[John Gogo]

I think the fact that the moon has little or no atmosphere- (the idea
that weather produces changes in the Earth's crust) will make drilling
a very stable venture. I think of it as the cutting or hollowing out
of Styrofoam.

[John Gogo]

Since the Earth "suspends" the moon- meaning that the moon has one-
eighth the Earths gravity- means that as we drill into the moon the
rock on top of us has one-eighth the weight as rock on the Earth.
Therefore, the moon rock will be eight times more stable than Earth
rock.

[John Gogo]

Brad says: It would by that time, of 20+ months and 2+ trillion

invested into
exploiting our moon would have ironed out most of the bugs.

If the "moon base" will be a permanent structure- there will be much
more than 2 trillion invested. Once this becomes a reality- it will
never go away. Future generations will always be able to reap the
rewards.

[Brad Guth]

Yes, it could be a relatively easy TBM task.

[John Gogo]

Sam the whole of the spaceship does not have to be made of lead. Only
the astronauts within the spaceship need to be protected.

[John Gogo]

You have to look at the natural order of things. 150 years ago we
were not talking about moon travel because we hadn't even learned how
to fly. Now that we have these ass-kicking engines- and the fact that
the Apollo had achieved so much- we are now at a stage to simply fill
in our own blank. In other words, the next stage is obvious not
mysterious.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <iP-dnS1DS__h8KTS...@mchsi.com>, swormley1
@gmail.com says...

You're not kidding. For anyone that doesn't know, here's a quick
summary off the top of my head.

Lunar dust isn't like earth bound dust. Earth dust is exposed to many
forms of weathering (friction) which quickly wears off sharp edges.
Because the moon has no fluid water and no atmosphere, it lacks the
ability to weather rock, so lunar dust is extremely abrasive.

On top of that, I believe that the surface dust is also extremely fine,
due to being pounded over the eons by meteorites of all sizes. Even
micrometeorites cause the lunar dust to be broken up into smaller and
smaller pieces. The extremely small size of the dust particles means
that a small static charge is all that it takes to get it to stick to
things like space suits.

Add the top two problems together and you get a situation where
equipment, like suit fabric, seals, joints, etc. wears out *much* faster
than it would here on earth.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker

[Val Kraut]

>
> Why should the taxpayer (of either China or India) pay for such a thing?
> What do they get in the way of new science for the cost of making a moon
> base work and trucking all that carbon and hydrogen up there to keep it
> going?

You get the Hydrogen from the lunar water. China, at least publicly, thinks
the He3 in the lunar surface makes it economically feasible. You use He3 to
fuel fusion reactors that have yet to be developed.

Again you need a goal and requirements - a short term moon base may be
essential to developing the hardware and procedures for Mars, others think
lunar manufacturing can be profitable.And yet others say a moon base will be
another ISS type bottomless money pit.

[micro...@hotmail.com]

- How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the
moon?

If you think its not your off your rocker...
We will solve our problems on Earth...

[Brad Guth]

I agree, although our NASA/Apollo era still has way more secrets and
hocus-pocus than Harry Houdini.

The new and improved Saturn-V could easily deploy double the payload,
and those monsters could be mass produced by China and India at 10% of
what it would otherwise cost us.

Investing a hundred billion per month is going to represent at least
100 million jobs, and perhaps at least a fourth of those as higher
paying jobs could be American, another fourth as ESA and Russian jobs
and roughly half as provided via China and India.

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 13, 11:42 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: You have to look at the natural order of things. 150 years ago we

: were not talking about moon travel because we hadn't even learned
how
: to fly. Now that we have these ass-kicking engines- and the fact
that
: the Apollo had achieved so much- we are now at a stage to simply
fill
: in our own blank. In other words, the next stage is obvious not
: mysterious.

I’d have to agree, although our NASA/Apollo era still has way more tha
its fair share of secrets and hocus-pocus than Harry Houdini.

The new and improved Saturn-V could easily deploy double the payload,
and those monsters could be mass produced by China and India at 10% of
what it would otherwise cost us.

Investing a hundred billion per month is going to represent at least

100 million steady jobs, and perhaps at least a fourth of those as

higher paying jobs could be American, another fourth as ESA and
Russian jobs and roughly half as provided via China and India.

In other words, it’s a solid offworld kind of win-win for everything
and everyone. In 20 some odd months of spending like drunken sailors,
we’d have our moon base of TBMs and processing operations up and
running, along with lots of other associated stuff taking place and
only a very bright future of prosperity plus salvaging our global
environment at the same time. Where’s the down side?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 9, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?

> > For instance, compared to our "space station".
>
> The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
> below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions.  Above the
> LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
> <shrug>
>
> The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
> In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year.  Above the
> Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
> per year on the average.  Any solar activity will in addition sharply
> increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response
>
> <shrug>

[micro...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 14, 1:00 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:42 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : You have to look at the natural order of things.  150 years ago we
> : were not talking about moon travel because we hadn't even learned
> how
> : to fly.  Now that we have these ass-kicking engines- and the fact
> that
> : the Apollo had achieved so much- we are now at a stage to simply
> fill
> : in our own blank.  In other words, the next stage is obvious not
> : mysterious.
>
> I’d have to agree, although our NASA/Apollo era still has way more tha
> its fair share of secrets and hocus-pocus than Harry Houdini.
>
> The new and improved Saturn-V could easily deploy double the payload,
> and those monsters could be mass produced by China and India at 10% of
> what it would otherwise cost us.
>
> Investing a hundred billion per month is going to represent at least
> 100 million steady jobs, and perhaps at least a fourth of those as

I have never heard of anything more idiotic then jobs provided
by the Moon.

Is the Moon Mooning you?

> higher paying jobs could be American, another fourth as ESA and
> Russian jobs and roughly half as provided via China and India.
>
> In other words, it’s a solid offworld kind of win-win for everything
> and everyone.  In 20 some odd months of spending like drunken sailors,
> we’d have our moon base of TBMs and processing operations up and
> running, along with lots of other associated stuff taking place and
> only a very bright future of prosperity plus salvaging our global
> environment at the same time.  Where’s the down side?
>
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> On Feb 9, 3:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
> > > For instance, compared to our "space station".
>
> > The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
> > below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions.  Above the
> > LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
> > <shrug>
>
> > The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
> > In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year.  Above the
> > Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
> > per year on the average.  Any solar activity will in addition sharply
> > increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response
>

> > <shrug>- Hide quoted text -

[G=EMC^2]

On Feb 9, 9:16 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 6:01 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:32 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 8:12 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > How difficult and expensive would it be to have a "base" on the moon?
> > > > For instance, compared to our "space station".
>
> > > The space station and all manned space flights have been limited at or
> > > below the low earth orbit (LEO) except the Apollo missions.  Above the
> > > LEO, you have an intensive radiation zone called Van Allen Belts.
> > > <shrug>
>
> > > The LEO has a very benign radiation level of about 10 RADs per year.
> > > In the Van Allen Belts, it is at least 20M+ RADs per year.  Above the
> > > Van Allen Belts to the moon, the radiation level is about 250k RADs
> > > per year on the average.  Any solar activity will in addition sharply
> > > increase the dose rate beyond the Van Allen Belts.  <shrug>
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqv4q35QqUg&feature=watch_response
>
> > > <shrug>
>

> > The Moon is attainable by our present day technology.
>
> Not at all. You've lost your marbles.
> Stephen Hawking claims that same stupidity...
> Give a price per person on the moon and see what you get...
>
> Mitchell Raemsch; the prize
>
>
>
> > What if we
> > established our base underground to avoid the RADs?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Reality is we do not touch the moon. We are in a self contained space
suit walking on the moon. Get the picture TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Feb 10, 1:30 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/12 12:00 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 9:47 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 2/9/12 11:39 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> That moon gives off a good trillion fold more gamma/m2 than our sun.
>
> >>     Cite your data source, Brad.
>
> > Search:  moon gamma
> > Search: sun gamma
>
> > Of course the sun has 1.6e5 times more surface area to work with, so
> > perhaps a trillion to one isn't any too far fetched.
>
>    There's nothing hot enough on the moon to produce any gamma radiation,
>    leaving only natural radioactivity similar to on the earth.
>
>    The primary source of gamma radiation on the surface of the moon comes
>    from the solar corona.

Sam Mercury get the biggest Sun burn even if Venus is the hottest
planet. Get the picture TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Feb 10, 12:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The life that we find all over this planet exits because it evolved
> to fit the niche that it occupies.
>
> Our planet is protected from ionizing radiation, radiation that
> damages molecules, by two things:
>    1. Earth's magnetic field protects us from the deadly solar wind
>    2. Earth's atmosphere protects us from hard UV, x-ray and gamma
>       rays from the sun.
>
> It makes no sense to me to put us on the moon or Mars where we have
> to continually supply protection, food, air, water, heat and cooling
> just to keep from dying.
>
> Twenty or thirty years from now with better technology, the problem
> is still the same--we have to continually supply protection, food,
> air, water, heat and cooling just to keep from dying.
>
> Exploration of hostile worlds needs to be done robotically.

Than there can be only silicon life in the rest of the universe.Carbon
life is to fragile. TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Feb 10, 11:43 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:28 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >    As I thought--No data.
>
> Exactly;  where's our NASA/Apollo era instrument data, Sam?
>
> Silly me, they really didn't give any sh*t about science, did they.
>
> How is it that our NASA/Apollo era had no problems whatsoever with
> radiation issues?
>
>  -
>
> Just like your mainstream parrot self, I’ll just keep repeating the
> same old information so that it’ll become the only truth that you ever
> need to know about.
>
> One of the ultimate prices we’ll get to pay for going off-world, is
> the accumulative full-body radiations from all the worse kinds of
> those potentially lethal spectrums.  However, with proper medications
> including steroids and stem cells, the body can manage to repair some
> or even most of the cellular DNA damage, although not everyone is
> going to achieve the same benefits because there’s no good way of
> telling which cells have been most damaged until the natural rejection
> process (aka cancer) sets in.
>
> Astronaut Janice Voss takes a 40+ year hit off her previously above
> average healthy life, as having died of breast cancer after being full-
> body radiated for only 49 days worth of shuttle orbiting exposure to
> her otherwise healthy 55 year short life.  Sure thing, our NASA/Apollo
> guys all managed to get zilch worth of radiation while protected on
> average with only half as much shielding, as well as spending hours
> going each way though parts of our lethal Van Allen belts, orbiting
> our naked moon plus spending a day on its physically dark, naked and
> gamma radiating surface while walking upon that considerably
> paramagnetic metallicity surface, that by day is not only extremely
> hot but also functions as a good anticathode by giving off those pesky
> gamma and hard X-rays.
>
> Perhaps like all of the Apollo era of using Kodak film that was so
> unusually rad-hard, their dosimeters were equally acting rad-hard.
> But at least so far they’ve all been extremely lucky, by not having
> experienced anything the least bit negative in consequences from their
> great exposures to solar, cosmic and lunar secondary gamma and X-rays,
> nor anything related to their portion of time spent within parts of
> those Van Allen belts, especially since the exit and return phase
> wasn’t nearly polar enough to avoid some of that higher dosage.
>
> Of course there’s still no objective instrumentation data pertaining
> to the hard science of those Apollo missions, other than having to
> take their interpretation as the one and only last word on
> everything.  It’s kind of funny how so much of our spendy mission data
> got lost and/or tossed out with the garbage.
>
> Once those mostly robotic TBMs get us a km underground, such as within
> our physically dark and otherwise paramagnetic basalt tough (nearly
> carbonado worthy) moon, is where the outside environment doesn’t
> count.  We should even be relatively safe and cozy at 0.1 km depth.

>
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

We don't have to go under ground. We can go cave. Lots of hills every
where. You also get a better view.Hit golf balls further Make shit
balls and roll them into the valley below. Get the picture TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

On Feb 12, 12:22 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 7:17 am, "Val Kraut" <marv...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > One might imagine a complex heated and by solar energy though
> > it would need a great storage system for the long night.
> > Some have proposed a polar colony but I wonder how the
> > lunar tilt is to the sun?
>
> > Very small tilt - there are mountains around the south pole crater
> > shackleton that get sun light better than 50 % of the Lunar day. Also have
> > nearby water in perpetual darkness and other aspects that make the pole a
> > choice site. Although relatively cold, it has less of a temperature range
> > than an equatorial site - this makes equipment design easier.
>
> >                                                             Val Kraut
>
> Processing the metallicity and other elements out of that paramagnetic
> basalt rock via solar derived energy by day, will more than last
> throughout the surface cryogenic nighttime. (via terrific planetshine,
> that surface nighttime isn't actually all that cold, nor dimly
> illuminated)
>
> Besides, TBMs excavating underground makes whatever's a hard vacuum,
> hot, cold, irradiated or getting pulverized outside kind of
> meaningless.

>
>  http://translate.google.com/#
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Moon surface nighttime temperature is a -244F(that's cold) Be nice to
find a hot spot to build a base since the Apollo missions found
evidence of heat coming mout of Moon's interior going into space.
Moon core has a temp of about 825F Ganymede Jupiter's largest
saterlite has a lot more going for it than our Moon Might as well add
Mercury Venus and Mars as well. Want life look to Io underground
TreBert

[Brad Guth]

On Feb 14, 1:16 pm, "microm2...@hotmail.com" <microm2...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Where do you think that hundred billion dollars per month is going?

Are you actually suggesting our moon is worthless?

[John Gogo]

The choice of location of the space station will include many factors.

[Brad Guth]

Natural moon caves are few and far between, and they may not be deep
enough for suitable airlocks. However, hollow rills could be accessed
with minimal tunneling. TBM's create artificial caves, except made as
deep and creating as large of protected volume as you like.

[Brad Guth]

Actually, once inside of that sucker, you can be a nude as you like.