Russia to mine the Moon?
Pat Flannery
bombardmentforce
Brian McDermott
used to fluff up reports and to grab peoples' attention and imagination
(not necessarily a bad thing). In reality, He3 is not the most valuable
resource on the moon.
Minerals containing Aluminum and Titanium are in far more abundance on
the lunar surface, and are far more useful to us than Helium-3, for
which there is currently no way to burn in a reactor.
I doubt that anybody has much of a He3 reactor program, because I doubt
that anybody knows how to get a fusion reactor up and running
(self-sustaining) in the first place.
Scott Hedrick
"Brian McDermott" <bjm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1124542459.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I doubt that anybody has much of a He3 reactor program, because I doubt
> that anybody knows how to get a fusion reactor up and running
> (self-sustaining) in the first place.
Why, that's just one more thing for "bombardmentforce" to handwave away. No
need for pesky things like facts to get in the way.
Phil Weldon
for their use on earth. At least Helium 3 has the potential of being worth
more than the transportation costs. Aluminum and Titaium make up 8 % and
0.5 % respectively of the earth's crust. The energy necessary to refine
Aluminum and Titanium is the primary cost, not the raw materials.
Phil Weldon
"Brian McDermott" <bjm...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1124542459.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Hedrick
"Phil Weldon" <notdi...@example.com> wrote in message
news:QIGNe.409$I93...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>At least Helium 3 has the potential of being worth more than the
>transportation costs. Aluminum and Titaium make up 8 % and 0.5 %
>respectively of the earth's crust.
That's important only if you intent to transport material *to* Earth. Their
existence on the moon is very important, because mining them there *for use
on the moon* means they don't have to be carried from Earth.
Paul F. Dietz
> The abundance of Aluminum and Titanium on the moon is of zero consequence
> for their use on earth. At least Helium 3 has the potential of being worth
> more than the transportation costs. Aluminum and Titaium make up 8 % and
> 0.5 % respectively of the earth's crust. The energy necessary to refine
> Aluminum and Titanium is the primary cost, not the raw materials.
In the case of titanium it's the complexity and awkwardness of
the process for producing the metal, not just the energy cost, but yeah.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> That's important only if you intent to transport material *to* Earth. Their
> existence on the moon is very important, because mining them there *for use
> on the moon* means they don't have to be carried from Earth.
<sarcasm> Yeah! Instead of mining 3He for use in nonexistent fusion
reactors, we can mine aluminum ore to feed an entire non-existent space
industry. </sarcasm>
Getting fusion to work looks to be a *lot* easier than getting that
space industry set up. We've spent a lot more on space than we have
on controlled fusion, but we've made a lot more progress on the latter.
Paul
Brad Guth
Actually it's going for establishing the LSE-CM/ISS, along with the
deployed tether dipole element that's hosting a dozen or more of those
nifty 100 GW laser cannons as situated just 50,000 km from Earth
(25,000 km if you'd dare).
I believe that's Star-Wars high ground, and so much more. Thus I agree
that tonnes worth of He3 is just the tip of the lunar iceberg.
~
Life on Venus, a Township, Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
"In war there are no rules" - Brad Guth
Pat Flannery
bombardmentforce wrote:
>Do they have a H3 reactor program?
>
>
I seriously doubt it...this is the group who also stated they were going
to put giant space mirrors in GEO to thaw out Siberia and light up the
long russian winter night, as well as send men to Mars in about ten
years...around ten years ago.
They have all sorts of grandiose and impractical plans, but no funding
for them.
Maybe you should talk to them about nuclear pulse driven space
battleships... ;-)
Pat
Brad Guth
> <sarcasm> Yeah! Instead of mining 3He for use in nonexistent fusion
> reactors, we can mine aluminum ore to feed an entire non-existent space
> industry. </sarcasm>
perfectly feasible fusion reactors, whereas it's a matter of proven
fact that we haven't a spare joule worth of energy, so that no matters
what we can's mine nor even process any other aluminum ore to feed an
entire non-existent space industry. </not hardly sarcasm>
I guess we're just doomed to sit out WW-III, WW-IV and the war to end
all such energy wars being WW-V. Of course that final war will have to
be fought with sticks and stones between the few and far between
intellectuals as well as biological moron bigots remaining upon Earth.
Though other than all that, things should eventually return to norm as
based upon an energy standard of near zero fossil fuel that's worth
going for, meaning it'll take every last drop of blood as well as drop
of oil, tonne of coal and m3 of NG just to obtain whatever's necessary
as to keep their energy pillaging and process of raping mother Earth
sustained, whereas if we're lucky there'll be all of 1% available for
human consumption at $10,000/barrel.
Meanwhile, them dirty rotten Russians and quite possibly their Chinese
partners are off and running with their LSE-CM/ISS, thus easily
obtaining all of the He3 and of whatever other raw substances they'll
ever need.
<sarcasm> Of course these folks are going to be real friendly about
sharing this clean energy resource with the nations of such bigoted
fools that burned every bridge after having caused so much collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent for more than half a century.
</sarcasm>
bombardmentforce
Fusion reactors are over 50 years old,
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Ivy.html
We just have to adjust our expectations.
Why run a reactor for years? It can fininsh the reaction now.
bombardmentforce
the export market.
Paul F. Dietz
However, it's silly to run that kind of 'reactor' on 3He,
since they can run on plain deuterium and enriched
lithium, which are much cheaper.
Paul
cyph...@gmail.com
For small piston type fusion reactors, though, it might be worth
considering.
Phil Weldon
| That's important only if you intent to transport material *to* Earth.
Their
| existence on the moon is very important, because mining them there *for
use
| on the moon* means they don't have to be carried from Earth.
I am sure there will be all sorts of demand for white paint on the moon.
And do you have any idea how MUCH material would need to be transported TO
the moon before aluminum and titanium ores could be used ON the moon?
Phil Weldon
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_7INe.38807$rp.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Scott Hedrick
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:f7adnZPc0Ps...@dls.net...
> Getting fusion to work looks to be a *lot* easier than getting that
> space industry set up.
For one thing, it doesn't seem likely that the infrastructure needed to
develop fusion needs to be nearly as large or expensive as that for space.
Slow and steady is likely to produce better results.
Of course, the failures for fusion aren't nearly as telegenic.
Scott Hedrick
> And do you have any idea how MUCH material would need to be transported TO
> the moon before aluminum and titanium ores could be used ON the moon?
Yes, I do. That's why it's important to use local materials as much as
possible, so that things which *aren't* readily available, such as hydrogen,
take transportation priority.
Cardman
<notdi...@example.com> wrote:
>I am sure there will be all sorts of demand for white paint on the moon.
Not that much.
>And do you have any idea how MUCH material would need to be transported TO
>the moon before aluminum and titanium ores could be used ON the moon?
Look on the bright side.
Whatever they build in orbit will one day always fall to Earth. Beyond
someone moving it out of orbit that is.
However, whatever they put on the Moon will always be there. Just like
the Apollo hardware is still there waiting to be reused. This is
beyond asteroid impacts, launch from the Moon, loss, and turning it
into something else.
So once they have their Aluminum and Titanium mining, refining and
smelting hardware on the Moon, then it will always be there. Keep it
upgraded and in good working shape, then you will soon have lots of
Aluminum and Titanium to make other stuff.
Cardman.
Phil Weldon
exploitation of aluminum and titanium on the moon. And if cyrogenic fuels
and oxidizers are to be used, that mass is orders of magnitude greater than
the necessary titanium and aluminum.
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FJONe.38958$rp....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Phil Weldon
"Cardman" <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote in message
news:njdfg1dga2r4q16id...@4ax.com...
Scott Hedrick
> No, I don't think
Well said.
>And if cyrogenic fuels and oxidizers are to be used, that mass is orders of
>magnitude greater than the necessary titanium and aluminum.
Of course. That's why, the sooner native materials can be used, the sooner
the fraction of payload dedicated to them can be used for things that cannot
be found locally.
Duh...
Scott Hedrick
> <notdi...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>I am sure there will be all sorts of demand for white paint on the moon.
>
> Not that much.
Moonbase Alpha must need hundreds of tons of it, not to mention the tons
needed every week to cover the replacements for all the Eagles that crash.
Cardman
<notdi...@example.com> wrote:
>Apollo hardware waiting to be rescued? For what, a museum?
Some of it can be used directly, the rest can be broken down and used
in other things.
Cardman.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
But this only becomes true when the mass of the Al and Ti is greater than
the mass of the infrastructure used to mine, refine and launch it to your
destination.
I highly doubt that's gonna happen in say the next 10 years.
>
>
Michael Rhino
news:1124570182.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Your investors must take their profits from exports, so don't forget
> the export market.
Not necessarily. Finding a way to make tourism less expensive and more
enjoyable is useful. Mining for the purpose of supporting the tourists
industry could be profitable. In addition to joy riding tourists, you also
have scientist tourists. If you can combine the two industries, you can get
your cost per person down.
Solar cells will be one of the first industries on the moon, because you
need energy to do almost everything else you want to do. Next, we may mine
a single metal, such as iron, aluminum, or titanium and try to make that
single metal do everything we need to do.
Michael Rhino
What about moon base elephant?
Phil Weldon
of transported equipment that would be needed? And a projection of the cost
over, say, the next 200 years?
Phil Weldon
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p8QNe.18327$xW....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Michael Rhino
> Would you like to try an actual reply, and give your estimate for the
> amount of transported equipment that would be needed?
The US, China, Europe, and Japan all have large space organizations. Sooner
or later one of them is bound to do this calculation and then we will have
more reliable numbers to work with.
> And a projection of the cost over, say, the next 200 years?
Impossible task. 30 year projections are possible, but after that,
equipment designed now will be replaced which makes it hard to project
beyond that point.
Ideally, we would want to get a Moore's law working for space travel, but we
haven't reached that phase yet. Eventually, we'll reach a point where the
first set of mining/manufacturing equipment will be used to produce the
second generation of mining manufacturing equipment. That may be the stage
where the real cost savings kick in.
Brad Guth
only viable alternative is the interactive elements of the LSE-CM/ISS
(Lunar space Elevator).
(E)---->EM-L2=322,000 km>----><CM/ISS><--<ME-L1=62,000 km<--(M)
I'd give a better diagram but most usenet folks that still can't tie
their own shoe laces would only get confused without a talking pop-up
book.
Scott Hedrick
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:ZWTNe.747$I93...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I highly doubt that's gonna happen in say the next 10 years.
That's important only if you don't intend to stay.
Scott Hedrick
> Would you like to try an actual reply
I did. I gave your post all the reply it deserved.
Scott Hedrick
> "Phil Weldon" <notdi...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:oVUNe.7279$RZ2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Would you like to try an actual reply, and give your estimate for the
>> amount of transported equipment that would be needed?
I'll give you an *exact* amount: enough. More is unnecessary, less won't
work.
Sander Vesik
>
> I doubt that anybody has much of a He3 reactor program, because I doubt
> that anybody knows how to get a fusion reactor up and running
> (self-sustaining) in the first place.
>
Its not just that there is no way to burn it in a reactor its -
there also no actual way to mine it as things stand.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik
There are essentially no materials that are readily available on Moon. It
is not even clear that something we would normalyt consider to be an ore
is in fact readily available.
Phil Weldon
| I did. I gave your post all the reply it deserved.
At this point I realized that I gave your posts MORE attention than
deserved.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Phil Weldon
"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A1Oe.30800$XM3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Rémy MERCIER
Pat Flannery Wrote:
> I'll believe this when I see it:
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zl.html
Me too... However, Iron titanium oxide (ilmenite) """"""contains
oxygen, which could be extracted for breathing, as well as hydrogen and
helium absorbed from the solar wind. Heating the mineral would release
the gases, which could then be used as a power source for a Moon
base."""""""
Then we'll have some He3 without looking for it. Sure we'll not throw
it.
From: http://tinyurl.com/cak6q
With a Moon elevator it will be very cost effective to bring back
many heavier materials from the Moon.
Rémy
--
Rémy MERCIER
Brad Guth
bombardmentforce;
>Do they have a H3 reactor program?
In spite of our best perpetrated cold-war efforts, as to know thy enemy
and to snooker thy humanity, Russia seems to have retained just about
everything else under the sun to work with (certainly having been a
whole lot more rocket-science smarter than we are), so I'd have to
honestly speculate they have whatever it takes for accomplishing a
fusion reactor, or at least they'll soon have it fully established by
the time their first shipments of lunar He3 arrive.
However, as for their getting whatever safely and energy efficiently
to/from the lunar surface needs to first deal with securing the basis
of their establishing a good Lunar Space Elevator, which has been
technically doable within existing laws of physics and well as within
existing technology and of products that unlike spendy nano-tubes are
insead of mostly continuous basalt fiber, thus dirt/rock cheap and
basically off the shelf as being 100% capable of being provided by way
of the moon, via raw basalt processing along with usage of all the pure
solar energy of what's way more than sufficient for the task of
producing such unlimited composite fibers on behalf of creating tethers
without taking another kg worth of Earthly substance nor energy.
This is not a joke, whereas a robotic deployment of applied technology
that's perfectly capable of processing upon the local basalt and
whatever other elements, as processed via solar farm of perhaps 1e6 m2
should be capable of deriving 1e9 j/m2 worth of process heat that's
happening within a near vacuum with only the purity of Argon and a few
other clean and obviously dry gasses to deal with, which should only
improve upon the basalt foundry process while insuring the ultimate
fiber of 4.84 GPa, if not a whole lot better.
Getting folks and of whatever robotic stuff and of exporting products
safely away from the LSE-CM/ISS that's being tether held just slightly
towards Earth gravity isn't 1% of the risk factor nor of is it taking
1% the overall energy/kg as per having to fly-by-rocket such items and
folks directly to/from the lunar surface. A se of counter balance
elevators and electromagnetic breaking actually becomes another energy
generating consideration. Terraforming the moon with itself becomes too
obvious, as from the high-ground of 62,000 km is from where any number
of methods for artificially impacting the moon becomes exceedingly
efficient and safe.
Here's another brief (less wordy) rundown on the LSE-CM/ISS, of which
since others can't seem to be bothered and/or would rather not be
implicated in disclosing the truth and nothing but the truth, thus I've
given my less than ideal math another lose cannon shot in the dark
because, I know as a matter of physics fact that I'm essentially right,
and just because my math hasn't been up to your standards isn't a
disqualification of the truth that's here to behold, it's just proving
that I'm a whole lot more right about so much other that's been related
about our moon, as well as per the ulterior motives and hidden agendas
of so many as having been running us amuck for decades, as every bit as
much as I'd thought possible, and then some.
I'd thought honest folks already knew about the LSE-CM/ISS, whereas
this Lunar Space Elevator as outfitted with a rather sizable (1e6 m3)
ISS abode within, as being situated roughly 62,000 km off the highly
reactive lunar deck (perhaps +/- a few thousand km) depends upon how
the tethers are having to tensioned, along with the deployed dipole
element and the CCM aspects as providing methods of interactively
keeping the CM/ISS gravity-well usage situation within the relative
safety and energy efficiency of approprately taking advantage of the
EM-L2/ME-L1 sweet-spot, though perhaps having to reside a sufficient
distance towards mother Earth is the most likely solution that could
have the CM/ISS residing as much as 66,000 km off the lunar deck.
(E)------>EM-L2=322,400 km>------><CM/ISS><--<ME-L1=62,000 km<--(M)
Beside gravity issues, there's a slight but quite usable factor of
Centrifugal or Apparent Force of revolution as based upon a period of
27.3217 days.
Whereas 655.728 hrs/revolution = 2.3606e6 seconds/revolution
Circumference @1r of 1738 km = 10.9202e6 meters
Surface (1r)velocity = 10.9202e6/2.3606e6 = 4.626 m/s (roughly 1% of
Earth)
1r = (10.92e6 m)= 4.626 m/s
2r = (21.84e6 m)= 9.252 m/s
4r = 18.504 m/s
8r = 37.008 m/s
16r = 74.016 m/s
32r = 148.032 m/s
ME-L1+ @35.673r (62,000 km) = 389.5575e6 meters circumference = 165.025
m/s
Actually, if that 62,000 km CM/ISS position were taken from the lunar
surface becomes an average of roughly 2.2 km towards Earth, thus if
anything there's a slight Earthly pull upon the CM/ISS, although since
everything is supposedly interactive and adjustable, there's absolutely
anything you'd care to create in terms of tether tension. However, for
my basic calculations and of limited math is where I've come up with
the following data that can obviously be computer modeled to any point
of being 3D and as much interactive worthy of absolutes as necessary.
Speeding up the computer model by 1e6:1 should be quite entertaining at
2.36 seconds per revolution, or 2.55 seconds/Synodic period.
Centripetal force calculation of the CM/ISS as 50,000 t at 62,000 km
traveling at 165 m/s
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
The centrifugal or Apparent force of the LSE-CM at 50,000 tonnes = 2239
kg
2239 kg worth of centrifugal or apparent force applied onto the tether
is rather obviously in of itself insufficient for tensioning the
primary tethers as anchored into the moon, thus placing the CM/ISS a
bit further away from the moon is option No.1 (@50,000t each 0.001G =
50 tonnes), increasing the overall mass of the CM/ISS to 100,000 t or
even 500,000 t becomes option No.2, and/or of having deployed a fairly
substantial tether dipole element as headed directly towards mother
Earth, as perhaps reaching that element to within 50,000 km (closer if
you'd dare since there's a +/- 22,000 km variable to deal with that can
also be made fully interactive so as to regulate the platform distance)
and of that dipole element having the substantial termination pod or
platform of hosting a dozen or so of those nifty star-wars 100 GW laser
cannons, whereas perhaps this item affording yet another sizable ISS
abode and DoD star-wars outpost worth 5,800t becomes worth 100 t of
tether pull, whereas 58,000t is still doable at creating something less
than 1,000t of apparent average gravity force while situated at the
range of 50,000 km, that plus having to accommodate 272,500 km worth of
a robust composite tether weighing in at perhaps 1 kg/m is 272,500
tonnes. However, because of it's average distance of 161,200 km from
Earth shouldn't represent more than 272,500/605 = 500 tonnes of
apparent force. Thus a given design 500 tonnes + 1000 tonnes = 1500
tonnes extra primary tether tensioning as pulling upon the CM/ISS
towards Earth.
BTW; this LSE is not imposing any significant threat to the rescssion
and/or orbit of our moon, whereas I'd been previously informed or
perhap intentionally misinformed by others having been fooling with my
head as to believe that roughly 5 terajoules of tidal and velocity
sustaining energy is responsible for sustaining the current velocity
and recession of 38 mm/year. Obviously this amount seems in error if
we're talking about the entire moon being worth 7.35e22 kg, and of
moving that sucker away at the velocity of 38 mm/year.
Thus how about the apparent velocity of .038/31.536e6 = 1.205e-9 m/s
7.35e22 * 1.205e-9 = 88.5675e12 joules without having included for
whatever Vt/slug drag coeficient which should place that moon recession
and maintaince of velocity at something better than 100 terajoules.
Even dividing that energy equally between Earth and the moon = 50
terajoules.
Another confusing method for my dyslexic brain but otherwise suggested
by the likes of an online "ENERGY UNIT CONVERSION CALCULATOR" of
work/energy calculation as based upon the kgf.m/s of a 7.35e22 kg moon
that's moving itself off supposedly via tital energy by 0.038 m/year
seems to have come up with 868.53 TJ. Thus either way we're looking at
way more than whatever influence an LSE and tether dipole element can
apply. In other related words of my limited wisdom; if you wanted to
terraform a given hot and nastly planet with that of an icy proto-moon,
such as ours being perhaps worth 4000 km upon arrivial, whereas such
godly or whatever astrophsics happenstance of such items going bump in
the night, it seems that ours (meaning on behalf of terraforming mother
Earth) is about as good as it gets, plus having left us with a nifty
hulk of a de-iced moon that's just hanging aound for us village idiots
to do something with.
Another energy related thought; each 1000t of tether force/m/s =
9.80665 MJ
Even though there's an average transition of +/- 17.34 m/s (thus +/-
170 MJ/1000t) associated within every 29.5 days, that's obviously a
give and take situation that month by month should nullify.
As purely another suggestion; the primary tethers might be at least
twice the mass as per the dipole element, thus 62,000 km = 124,000
tonnes worth of basalt/silica composite tethers that isn't hardly worth
anything because of the 1/6th gravity of the moon to start off with,
then being an average distance 31,000 km represents a gravity force
reduction of 318:1, thereby 124,000/6/318 = 65 tonnes of tether mass
pulling down upon the 50,000t CM/ISS. Thus perhaps it'll be a good
notion of making the primary tethers four fold tougher than the dipole
element (better safe than sorry).
It's certainly a bit more complicated than all of that, being that I
have an available nearby CCM(counter-counter mass) element placed as an
interactive(vertically moving) moonward pulling compensation element,
that plus whatever the final CM/ISS mass, and/or of it's linear
placement and of the tether dipole element are entirely adjustable in
terms of their overall mass and of their linear placements, so that
there'd be no possible situation that couldn't be fully R&D engineered
to suit and/or robotically accommodated while on the fly. The only part
of the plan that'll require being regulated or floating at nearly the
exact ME-L1/EM-L2(zero gravity) is of the massive counter-rotating
energy storage flywheels, whereas them massive and powerful energy
storage suckers should not affect tether tensioning either way unless
this active energy storage element were utilized as to replace the
interactive CCM component.
As usual, I'll have to keep working this one over a bit in order to
update into a few of my previously established external pages as having
been pertaining to the Lunar Space Elevator. Any feedback as viable
contributions and whatever math corrections will certainly be
appreciated and given the fullest of credits for your efforts, which
obviously excludes 99.9% of such all-knowing USENET folks that are
simply far too cloak and dagger brown-nosed to give an incest cloned
borg's worth of a tinkers damn about any of this, or of anything other
that'll honestly benefit humanity, or otherwise they wouldn't dare
contribute squat (other than MOS of their dog-wagging flak) out of
lethal fears as per their Skull and Bones nondisclosure enforcements by
those MEN-in-BLACK that took care of JFK and of that whistle-blowing
NASA safety engineer and of his entire family to boot.
Actually, I believe the MI5/NSA Whistleblowing Code is a code of
nondisclosure/silence, or else.
~
Life on Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
OM
<Rmy.MERCI...@spacebanter.com> wrote:
>Rémy MERCIER
...Is there a *rational* reason that you SCREAM your last name? Or is
this some Frog custom we're not used to?
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
Rémy MERCIER
> Rémy MERCIER-
>
> ....Is there a *rational* reason that you SCREAM your last name? Or is
> this some Frog custom we're not used to?
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr
Yes, a reason: I learn your langage and when I watch BBC the speakers
say allways: "I am etc...". Are you unaware about your own culture? And
why "OM"? Are you really a mystic? Not sure... whith a *rational* god.
Rémy
"wine is better with cheese when I look soyuz or ariane 5 lift off."
--
Rémy MERCIER
OM
<Rmy.MERCI...@spacebanter.com> croaked:
>Yes, a reason: I learn your langage and when I watch BBC the speakers
>say allways: "I am etc...". Are you unaware about your own culture? And
>why "OM"? Are you really a mystic? Not sure... whith a *rational* god.
...You missed the point. By putting your last name in ALL CAPS, you're
effectively *screaming* it out.
Screaming in ALL CAPS doesn't earn anyone any brownie points,
Froggie...
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>...Is there a *rational* reason that you SCREAM your last name? Or is
>this some Frog custom we're not used to?
>
>
>
>
I'm still """"""working"""""" on what this aspect of his postings is all
about.
Pat
OM
wrote:
>I'm still """"""working"""""" on what this aspect of his postings is all
>about.
...Most of them lose meaning in his self-translation. To be honest,
after trying to decypher his Frogspeak, I'm convinced he thinks this
is a group about using french cooking as part of some massage therapy
for lung cancer.
Rémy MERCIER
> Rémy MERCIER-
>
> ....Is there a *rational* reason that you SCREAM your last name? Or is
> this some Frog custom we're not used to?
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr
HI,
You missed the point. From where a post my messages, “Rémy MERCIER” is
added automatically. But, even without my permission, you could have
thought that I was a V.I.P.
Rémy
Wine is better with cheese when I look Ariane5 or Soyuz liftoff.
--
Rémy MERCIER
David Higgins
> Screaming in ALL CAPS doesn't earn anyone any brownie points,
> Froggie...
And calling someone Froggie does, you Texas Turkey? ;-)
Rémy MERCIER
> I'm still """"""working"""""" on what this aspect of his postings is
> all
>
> ....Most of them lose meaning in his self-translation. To be honest,
> after trying to decypher his Frogspeak, I'm convinced he thinks this
> is a group about using french cooking as part of some massage therapy
> for lung cancer.
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr
Thank you very much for the capital letter (frogspeak/Frogspeak).
Rémy
--
Rémy MERCIER
OM
...After their impotence during GWII - and WWII, for that matter - the
answer to that is an inarguable *yes*.
Next dumb question?
OM
<Rmy.MERCI...@spacebanter.com> wrote:
>But, even without my permission, you could have
>thought that I was a V.I.P.
[insert hysterical laughter]
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
OM
<Rmy.MERCI...@spacebanter.com> wrote:
>> "No Frog ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
>> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
>> poor dumb bastard die for France." | Human O-Ring Society
>>
>> - General George S. Patton, Jr
...If you're going to be inconsiderate and fail to trim .sigs from
your quotes, then don't censor them. And spare me the bullshit about
your ISP "automatically adding" it.
>Thank you very much for the capital letter (frogspeak/Frogspeak).
...frogspeak is what Kermit speaks. Frogspeak is what you Frogs speak.
Simple as that.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
>
>...Most of them lose meaning in his self-translation. To be honest,
>after trying to decypher his Frogspeak, I'm convinced he thinks this
>is a group about using french cooking as part of some massage therapy
>for lung cancer.
>
>
Hey, remember... one of the first key design features of the Hermes
spaceplane was to figure out what food was going to be served onboard
during a mission.
(I'm not kidding about this- the complete menu is in Miller's "The Dream
Machines".)
Pat
Rémy MERCIER
> But, even without my permission, you could have
>
> [insert hysterical laughter]
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
>
> - General George S. Patton, Jr
This was a funny contribution to help you to be happy.
Rémy
--
Rémy MERCIER
Brad Guth
You're barking up the wrong tree. These freaks suck poorly at
everything except for their sucking upon the private parts of other
incest cloned borgs. This usenet is their very own brown-nose and
disinformation-R-us city, in that any notion that involves our moon or
that'll actually improve the quality of life for one outsider (non
O-Ring member) isn't going to happen over their cloak and dagger dead
bodies.
Russia is going to the moon, or at least to establishing their LSE
befor China manages to deliver an honest space-race worth of a
sucker-punch. However, the "Monolith of truth" by Warhol seems to have
been sinking under it's own weight of having to accommodate those LLPOF
disinformation-R-us infomercials as having been taking us faster than a
speeding bullet into the nearest space-toilet of life, as humanity has
been quite summarily snookered, brown-nosed and otherwise continually
dumbfounded along by those that actually think they're calling all the
shots. Lo and behold, humanity as we've known it is about to get
royally flushed directly into the mainstream of the biggest
intellectual crapolla cesspool on Earth, either by way of our very own
warm and fuzzy incest cloned warlord(GW Bush) taking us minions into
his personal WW-III on behalf of g;obal energy domination or, because
folks no matter what simply will NOT accept nor believe the truth and
nothing but the truth, and that's just the way they like it, right
along with all of their perpetrated cold-wars, global-warming,
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, as our cloak and dagger
spice of life.
Besides what's been absolutely nifty about Venus, there's also the
extremely hot and nasty topic about our moon that remains to be walked
upon, and another sub-topic that's every bit just as testy as for the
proper utilization of ISS in the process of folks establishing our
first and one and only LSE-CM/ISS claim upon that zone of mutual
nullification before Russia or China gets there first.
Notions about getting us past the speed of light, as into "time travel"
or "time reversed computing" are other topics well accepted by way of
my dyslexic brain cells but, that remains as pretty much another load
of pie in the sky, at least for the moment. Whereas the following
couple of topics are a wee bit more down to Earth, or at least near
enough to Earth and entirely doable within the realms of the regular
laws of physics and, as having been backed up with whatever
hard-science that we've actually got to work with.
Topic: Internet on the ISS?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/ca2a4bddb389a60b/d0dd105d73afd5e5?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=6#d0dd105d73afd5e5
If ISS were to be relocated, just as I believe is technically possible
to accomplish even though a few extra tonnes of shielding may be
required for accommodating us humans, as for being nicely situated at
the ME-L1/EM-L2 mutual though somewhat interactive
gravity-well/nullification, as then the notion of having an ISS
Internet would start to make a little sense, exactly like my topic on
the Russian He3/fusion economy and perhaps of their new world order as
based upon such clean energy, that'll require them supposedly dirty
rotten Russians to first establish their LSE-CM/ISS. Of course there's
only going to be room for one of these nifty LSE suckers. Imagine that,
a Russian star-wars platform that's about a high of battle ground as
you're going to get.
Moon Physics via Russian LSE-CM/ISS and He3 update:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.scientists/browse_frm/thread/e0b3615dd402498f/042544ab70219998?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=1#042544ab70219998
-
At least the regular laws of physics and of the known hard-science
about our moon and Venus, as to our viably making all sort of nifty
stuff happen can't possibly exclude ETs, from their having been making
a go of it in spite of that environment upon Venus being so gosh darn
darn hot and otherwise not actually all that nasty because, it's
relatively bone dry and there's been no shortage of energy, plus I'd
have to think that raw minerals and of most every primary element
happens to coexist just fine and dandy. Perhaps I'll have to post
another extensive topic list of what's become most interesting about
doing our not so old moon and, about Venus that's passing us by at
roughly 105 times as far away as our moon, whereas it's been a rather
geologically active orb that'll need the likes of your talents and/or
expertise as to polish up the necessary research and then help with the
process of delivering a few of those white-papers on whatever it is
that you and I can manage to deal with.
Besides loads of absolutely nifty topics about our moon and of the
LSE-CM/ISS, might I suggest any of these basic notions from the
following list of topics;
complex and multiple reservoirs
those multiple parabolic items
those rigid airships of Venus
the airship/UFO park-n-ride tarmac
well insulated highrise structures
that nifty bridge consideration
of other surface roadbed issues
of those multiple rock quarry sites
making due with too much clean energy
CO2-->CO/O2 and making of H2O2
extracting pure H2O from cool clouds
interplanetary laser communications
TRACE-VL2 as an alternative
Structural insulation that's buoyant
observationology interpreted features
terraforming the likes of Venus w/Sedna
Ungreenhouse growing of whatever
planetary evolution w/wo God
other than human life on Venus
air conditioning via CO2-->CO/O2
what's actually hot enough to boil at 100 bar
Andrew Gray
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:55:51 +0000, Rémy MERCIER
><Rmy.MERCI...@spacebanter.com> croaked:
>
>>Yes, a reason: I learn your langage and when I watch BBC the speakers
>>say allways: "I am etc...". Are you unaware about your own culture? And
>>why "OM"? Are you really a mystic? Not sure... whith a *rational* god.
>
> ...You missed the point. By putting your last name in ALL CAPS, you're
> effectively *screaming* it out.
Name capitalisation is quite common in some contexts, often limited to
just the surname. Not v. common, but you do see it here and there.
--
-Andrew Gray
andre...@dunelm.org.uk
Rand Simberg
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>There are essentially no materials that are readily available on Moon.
Of course there is. It's called regolith. Makes good radiation
shielding.
Brad Guth
What a typically pathetic intellectual cesspool worth of infomercials,
disinformation and MOS of your evidence exclusions running the rest of
us minions amuck. These freaks of your's can't even admit that we
haven't actually manage to set a moonboot worth of any TBI hot-foot
upon our dark, dusty and otherwise downright nasty moon, thus they're
not about to admit that them dirty rotten Russians are about to land
and/or establish a for-real sucker-punck upon us pathetic and quite
dumbfounded fools.
Just for my having to suggest that we haven't walked moonsuit
butt-naked upon the moon is obviously bad enough. However, in spite of
all the incoming flak, it seems that I've got lots more really neat
stuff to share for those that are not continually focused until death
do us part upon their having to defend such pagan institutions of
soft-science and conditional-physics that thrives only under the
ruse/sting of a skewed social/political and too often religious agenda,
of intent and actions that are not anywhere nearly as rational nor as
moral as we'd been lead to believe,yet you in fact do believe every
word as long as it supports your mindset, thus borg like intellectual
mentality of whatever the collective of your peers has to say is just
perfectly fine and dandy by way of your high standards and
accountability that quite frankly sucks.
Since it's nearly impossible for myself and most others to tell any one
spook of a soul from any other within this USENET forum from hell that
continually sucks, all that I can offer is that I'm sorry that my
Klingon dyslexic encryption code has often been too much for any of
their vast talents and expertise to handle, and I'd perhaps advise that
they don't even try pushing portions of this truth-code through any of
our super-computers because, my thoughts will likely fry their parallel
CPUs.
BTW; this topic contribution isn't about proper/improper words or even
about whatever math, but since folks are clearly afraid to offer what's
otherwise taboo/nondisclosure or need-to-know is why I have to speak my
mind and offer the best I can when it comes down to various
calculations that are offered as to represent the intent of the given
task at hand, and not whatever absolutes that yourself and others are
solely looking for as a means by which to disqualify whatever I have to
offer. If your math and/or words are so much better, all you have to do
is provide those good numbers and better words, and/or be so kind as to
point out where you've obtained such all-knowing words and math or
whatever observationology worthy images of other interesting patterns
of whatever's either artificial or not about a given planet.
As to all of what I've perceived as the ongoing butt-cheek flatulence
flapping worth of the supposed mainstream intelligence as having been
based upon disinformation and/or evidence exclusion goes; all I can say
is if you've become that brown-nose deep into being entirely
pro-NASA/Apollo by way of their good book, then chances are that your
value as an all-around human simply isn't worth all that much within my
book, and since I'm usually having to work from the back towards the
front, I rather doubt there's going to become any chapter five merger
of minds where the two of us will nullify upon anything except to keep
firing our lose cannons at will (poor Will simply has to keep taking
all the flak from both sides).
Face it; no matters what truths there are to behold, you're probably
forever stuck within your world and I'm stuck within mine, as
incompatable as matter and antimatter. Though at least within my world
of open minds offers somewhat of a free spirit, whereas you're
certainly not about to be going anywhere that's not been officially
moderated and/or fully scripted by those encharge of your body and soul
(as having been enforced by those nifty AKA Men-in-Black).
Basically, of what I'm still saying after six years and counting, as
having been based upon the very same science worth of physics arguments
and notions that I'd started out with but having less expertise as for
communicating such, as well as for our Apollo ruse/sting as having been
further certified along by way of those Kodak moments worth of well
established photographic physics that do not lie, are still the same
reasons that I can say we simply haven't been there nor done that moon
thing, but we really should at least get with establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS before Russia or China gets there's in place first, and as
such it doesn't have to even be all that ISS big of a deal to start off
with, just robotically establishing such high-ground and tether
potential that'll preclude others from taking advantage of this one and
only mutually interactive nullified zone. Secondly, there's been dozens
of perfectly good and scientifically valid reasons for doing Venus, and
a whole lot cheaper and much faster results worth of such reasons as to
be looking as hard as possible at Venus instead of Mars.
More than a decade if not two decades ago I'd learned enough about Mars
to have realized it was extremely interesting and somewhat doable,
though technically representing a lost cause as far as public funding
is concerned. Nearly 6 years ago I learned of enough existing
hard-science and of the regular laws of physics that proves Venus is
that of an entirely new and improving geological situation that so
happens to also indicate as having been hosting a good many items of
potentially artificial structures, that you'd think worth our taking
another look-see. Obviously I was incorrect, whereas apparently
identify all of those WMD from supposedly far better resolution images
was to become our priortity-1.
Thus why otherwise all the flak?
Perhaps it had a little something to do with what had been officially
published and summarily pushed into our supposed higher levels of
education (from preschool on up), and thus having affected the quality
and mindset of life as we know it, as to all of the hocus-pocus science
and physics about our moon that simply wasn't adding up any more so
than the ongoing global energy war that really sucks as being nothing
but further butt loads of LLPOF.
Here's that "harvard.edu" composite worth of Kodak moments, of yet
another one of those gosh darn lunar white-out zones, actually
suggesting of the entire damn moon being of 55+% reflective. That
mountain of apparently moon-snow in the background is clearly more like
65~75+% reflective as based upon the 80~85% reflective moonsuit, and
I'm fairly certain that the color as obtained within this image is
sufficiently corrected as per those artificial items of Apollo being
within frame.
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/images/desktops/Lunarama.jpg
Of course there's absolutely no sign whatsoever of any stinking LRV
tracks, and as always the pitch black sky that was supposedly over an
extremely dark and nasty (nearly coal like) lunar terrain as having
been observed and nicely photographed from orbit as it should have been
covered in the likes of carbon, titanium and iron dust, yet offering no
dim sign of whatever's worthy of other nearby planets (such as good old
75+% reflective Venus), or of the extremely intense Sirius star system
(as to the unfiltered Kodak eye not human eye) that should have
recorded quite nicely through any polarised filtered lens that should
have actually been making the lunar surface appear even darker, by
nearly 50% less than the 12% albedo, and that's not to even mention
upon the lack of any color/spectrum skew and of secondary/recoil
photons that's entirely missing.
Moonpans offers MOS: Dear Mike Constantine (AKA moonpans),
I see that you've finally gotten around to PhotoShop cranking up the
otherwise subdued (xenon illuminated) blue of the American flag, but lo
and behold, it seem that you still have that nearly entirely 55+%
albedo moonscape that's quite frankly somewhat impossible, and still
nothing whatsoever of the horrifically bright Sirius star system, or
that of any nearby orb of extreme intensely of a 75+% reflective Venus,
that which must have been rather photographic annoying as hell on at
least two of the Apollo missions.
http://moonpans.com/a11neilmesa.htm
I especially enjoy this next official looking page of those autographed
photos that are each depicting as nearly of lunar white-out zones as
having damn few if any meteorite remains nor of secondary impact
shards, then absolutely sharing zilch, nada as in zero worth of
secondary/recoil photons of anything the least bit UV infused as
near-blue, much less as having offered any hard-X-ray dosage as per
otherwise having been since established as a certified hard-scientific
matter of fact by terrestrial satellite instruments, as for the solar
illuminated portions being quite a nasty situation.
http://moonpans.com/signed/
Forget all about the fact that there's still no viable fly-by-rocket
lander (US or Russian);
In no explainable physics way possible would the dark golden brown
(reddish tint of what titanium and iron dust that's got a good amount
of carbon blended in) as color and low albedo of the lunar surface have
been so extensively altered by way of folks being situated upon the
surface, as opposed to orbiting at 100+km off the deck. There are
simply too many direct comparisons of true color and of the raw
intensity or reflective albedo to work with. If anything, the
unfiltered EVA/moonsuit obtained Kodak moments as having been
supposedly obtained upon the surface should have recorded substantial
amounts of secondary/recoil photons, so much so that within shadows and
especially upon the items brought along for the ride should have
provided a noticeable degree of a near-blue cast of secondary
illumination, plus having obtained an overall green~bluish skew which
the film was certainly extremely sensitive to recording of such unless
having been extensively spectrum band-pass filtered in order to have
reasonably corrected for such. Even the initial raw Kodak moments as
obtain from their fully robotic Apollo-8 are certainly giving folks
with half a brain a clue as to the color/spectrum shift and surface
albedo considerations that existed. Later missions from orbit (manned
or robotic applied appropriate filters in order to obtain what's so
perfectly natural about the moon color and albedo that simply doesn't
shift simply because of being situated upon the surface as armed with
only a polarised filter that if anything should have made the lunar
surface darker, and certainly not the least bit lighter nor having
excluded remains of crisp meteorites along with the various spectrums
of natural color to boot.
I ask thar we forget all about the stinking moon, even try really hard
as to forget all about those cloak and dagger MI5/NSA~MI6/NASA
individuals and of such spooks and rusemasters as having "the right
stuff" that so many of us minions seem to think are so freaking
wonderful. I might also suggest that folks should desmirk their silly
faces and if need be botox treat their overly tight butt-cracks the way
our resident warlord(GW Bush) did, and not to forget to wipe off their
extremely brown noses, then just per having to use the regular laws of
physics and of the available hard-science that's been available about
Venus for over a decade, similar to what the likes of John Ackerman and
F.W. Taylor had to work with, whereas then lo and behold and gosh darn
if there's not all sorts of perfectly nifty things about Venus becoming
possible, if not easily surmountable and thus doable, and certainly a
whole lot more humanly obtainable as well as more survivable than Mars
(not that I'm suggesting anyone in their right minds should be planning
upon going to either planet).
Just reconsider upon my observationology with open thoughts regarding
Venus as being exactly what it is, an honest to God subjective
interpretation of what's certainly quite humanly hot and nasty but
also, of what otherwise looks far more likely as for being artificial
than not, thus either as having been constructed by Venusians (possibly
prior to Venus getting itself so hot and nasty upon arriving into our
solar system) or of ETs as having been involved with their needs of
extracting whatever away from Venus. Since it's been more than apparent
that our all-knowing wizard like spooks and their friends can't even
manage to detect upon any of our fairly robust and brightly reflective
Apollo remains as situated upon a nearly coal dark and nasty moon, that
which should have been offering an environment as having been covered
in a deep cosmic morgue worth of crisp meteorites and impact related
shards of dark basalt, all of which surrounded and coated with that
nasty electrostatic composite dust of carbon, iron and the likes of
titanium up to several meters deep in places, thus obviously these
incest cloned borgs and of their MI6/NSA spook friends are not the
least bit qualified as to challenge upon my interpretations of
whatever's on Venus.
Other than my having to deal with MOS from their continued
damage-control efforts, why otherwise are mainstream folks that claim
as being independent thinking souls that yet remain as so closed
minded, so entirely mindset into their being so utterly bigoted upon
self destruction/imploding or bust while remaining focused upon taking
as much resources and of humanity as they can along for the ride of our
lives to hell. I'm sorry to have to say that, as for going to Mars
certainly isn't much better off than hell, as well as hardly being any
cheaper than hell.
Joann Evans
>
> "Phil Weldon" <notdi...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:uFPNe.652$I93...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > No, I don't think
>
> Well said.
>
> >magnitude greater than the necessary titanium and aluminum.
>
> Of course. That's why, the sooner native materials can be used, the sooner
> the fraction of payload dedicated to them can be used for things that cannot
> be found locally.
>
> Duh...
Smelters, mills, foundries, etc. cannot spring up overnight, even on
Earth. Even the richest ores don't become finished products by
themselves.
And refining aluminum is *very* energy intensive....
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joann Evans
>
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:13:01 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
> <notdi...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >Apollo hardware waiting to be rescued? For what, a museum?
>
> Some of it can be used directly, the rest can be broken down and used
> in other things.
>
> Cardman.
And just how much do you think there is...?
A better argument could be made for raising the Titanic for its scrap
metal value.
Cardman
<bon...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:13:01 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
>> <notdi...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Apollo hardware waiting to be rescued? For what, a museum?
>>
>> Some of it can be used directly, the rest can be broken down and used
>> in other things.
>
> And just how much do you think there is...?
Enough to be useful. I have not yet seen a complete list of the tools
and equipment that was left behind during these Apollo landings, but I
have a good idea.
> A better argument could be made for raising the Titanic for its scrap
>metal value.
That analogy is invalid because Earth, unlike the Moon, has a vast
mining and refining system in place. This fact makes any costly
attempt to collect scrap metal as pointless, when the market value
would be less.
On the Moon, if they need a quick repair, then they can...
1. Establish a complete mining and refining system for this element,
which means tons of hardware from Earth and extreme cost. Good in the
longer term, but a problem early on.
2. Import from Earth at the cost of millions.
3. Hope that your Apollo scrap has it, where it is then just a case of
melting it down and using it. The cost is little more than the expense
required to collect it.
Cardman.
Phil Weldon
| 3. Hope that your Apollo scrap has it, where it is then just a case of
| melting it down and using it. The cost is little more than the expense
| required to collect it.
Expense required to collect it? Consider even REACHING the Apollo decent
stage. Consider the technology left behind is early 1960s at best. If you
are uncritically into juvenile science fiction (meaning science fiction
written for pre teen) by Paul French (aka Isaac Asimov) {"Lucky Starr and
the Pirates of the Asteroids"}or Robert Heinlin {"Have Spacesuit, Will
Travel"}, then the "hey kids, let's build a spaceship in the barn" scenario
might seem plausible. Most early readers of such fiction learn to
appreciate the difference between literary imagination and engineering.
Some evidently don't.
Phil Weldon
"Cardman" <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote in message
news:55a3h15qc2kj0n6vn...@4ax.com...
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <oWkQe.3246$9i4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>):
> or Robert Heinlin {"Have Spacesuit, Will
> Travel"}, then the "hey kids, let's build a spaceship in the barn" scenario
> might seem plausible.
At least spell the author's name right - it's "Heinlein" and the
spaceship in the barn story was "Rocketship Galileo". :-)
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
Dr. P. Quackenbush
> <bon...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >Cardman wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:13:01 GMT, "Phil Weldon"
> >> <notdi...@example.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Apollo hardware waiting to be rescued? For what, a museum?
> >>
> >> Some of it can be used directly, the rest can be broken down and used
> >> in other things.
> >
> > And just how much do you think there is...?
>
> Enough to be useful. I have not yet seen a complete list of the tools
> and equipment that was left behind during these Apollo landings, but I
> have a good idea.
Once you actually do the work and find the answer you'll realize how full of
crap your argument is. Don't even bother answering this post until you can
PROVE otherwise.
Brad Guth
nondisclosure rated questions, then perhaps within this banishment mode
is where I'll help honest folks to reconsider the degree of our being
so profoundly snookered by them dirty rotten Russians...
Before mining the moon, I do believe that first you have to get there
(at least robotically), as having avoided impacting and thus vaporising
upon your arrival, survive and return with whatever. However, not to
mention upon whatever supposed manned landers, might I ask as to what
Russian fly-by-rocket landers?
How the heck did them damn tricky Russians manage it without their ever
once documenting upon any portion of their R&D and prototype
proof-testing. Was Ye-8 and of their do-everything robotic land rover
strictly a pair of those as-built contraptions that never had a minutes
worth of phase by phase proof-testing, much less film documenting as to
such.
http://www.planetary.org/learn/missions/moonmissions.html#luna23
USSR Luna 23/24 Ye-8 (essentially a one-way tickets to ride that
instantly sank out of sight) Mass: 5600~5800 kg + robotic rover =
10,900 kg (apparently this doesn't even include whatever rocket fuel it
took getting that amount of mass safely down onto the deck)
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/lunye85m.htm
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/craft/lunaye8.htm
"The lander and rover together weighed 1814 kg on the lunar surface" X
6 = 10,884 kg.
I believe the 4~6 m2 worth of landing pads and whatever comprehensive
base surface contact area wasn't sufficient for such a AI/robotic
controlled soft-landing worth perhaps 1814 kg = 454 kg/m2 (better than
twice the surface contact area of what our much larger landers had to
work with, indicating somewhat an inch worth of pad depression).
If I've gotten that combined mass incorrect, in that case we may be
talking about merely 302 lunar kg, whereas then the sinkage factor as
due to such extremely poor surface tension is even much worse off than
I'd previously calculated.
Even though our NASA still has nothing of any R&D sorts of
fly-by-rocket lander, much less of any robotic/AI fly-by-rocket lander
capability, not so much as even existing on their drawing boards nor
within any computer flight simulator models, thus oddly when them
Russians that were supposedly the sole perpetrators in that supposed
cold-war with us, as they were trying their level best as to impress
upon the entire world that certainly included the rest of us American
heathens, as to how gosh darn good they'd had become at all of this
moon-race/space-race stuff is exactly where it seems there's just a wee
bit too much hocus pocus worth of our mutual cloak and daggers worth of
smoke and mirrors to deal with, as for either of us not having a stitch
worth of any engineering work or workmanship as saved, nor of any
functioning R&D prototypes, not even as merely recorded on 16 mm movie
film as to appropriately demonstrate squat, not to mention as to
infomercial hype as per having so easily proved once and for all as to
the Russian fly-by-rocket expertise that was supposedly bar none far
superior to that of ours. So, what the hell ever happened to all of
that Russian talent, expertise and those essential R&D prototypes?
I'm guessing that by having all of that proof positive and the actual
prototype technology that could have been so easily and independently
verified, as well as having been demonstrated to our hearts content,
was asking too much of them Russians that were literally freezing and
starving themselves to death, as to actually flaunt all of that
superiority in our imperialist faces.
Scott Hedrick
"Joann Evans" <bon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:4311531B...@frontiernet.net...
> Smelters, mills, foundries, etc. cannot spring up overnight, even on
> Earth. Even the richest ores don't become finished products by
> themselves.
Right...was there a point to your post? In time, these things will be built,
precisely because at some point it will be cheaper to produce locally. WHen
that happens, we can ship more stuff that *can't* be produced locally. That
seems to be a point that goes over the head of a lot of people.
> And refining aluminum is *very* energy intensive....
When you're on the moon, look up. You get lots of energy for nearly half the
time.
Pat Flannery
Joann Evans wrote:
>
> And just how much do you think there is...?
>
> A better argument could be made for raising the Titanic for its scrap
>metal value.
>
>
Don't knock the concept; they severed and raised the props from sunk
ocean liner (Andrea Dorea?) they were made of phosphor bronze and worth
a fortune for their metal content.
Pat
Alex Terrell
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> "Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:_7INe.38807$rp.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...> > news:QIGNe.409$I93...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >At least Helium 3 has the potential of being worth more than the
> > >transportation costs. Aluminum and Titaium make up 8 % and 0.5 %
> > >respectively of the earth's crust.
> >
> > That's important only if you intent to transport material *to* Earth.
> Their
> > existence on the moon is very important, because mining them there *for
> use
> > on the moon* means they don't have to be carried from Earth.
>
> But this only becomes true when the mass of the Al and Ti is greater than
> the mass of the infrastructure used to mine, refine and launch it to your
> destination.
>
Not really. The first products to be mined will be oxygen, and perhaps
hydrogen. Oxygen from ilmenite leaves iron.
Aluminium and Titanium are harder - so they'd come later.
Mike Combs
>
> "Joann Evans" <bon...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:4311531B...@frontiernet.net...
> > Smelters, mills, foundries, etc. cannot spring up overnight, even on
> > Earth. Even the richest ores don't become finished products by
> > themselves.
>
> Right...was there a point to your post? In time, these things will be
built,
> precisely because at some point it will be cheaper to produce locally.
WHen
> that happens, we can ship more stuff that *can't* be produced locally.
That
> seems to be a point that goes over the head of a lot of people.
One interesting question: exactly how small an
ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility could be built that, given a supply of
ore, could build a duplicate ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility? It
wouldn't matter if the first one had only a tiny fraction of the throughput
desired if if could replicate itself.
> > And refining aluminum is *very* energy intensive....
>
> When you're on the moon, look up. You get lots of energy for nearly half
the
> time.
Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass driver,
and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the time.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.
Scott Hedrick
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote in message
news:devgu9$qpd$1...@home.itg.ti.com...
> One interesting question: exactly how small an
> ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility could be built that, given a supply of
> ore, could build a duplicate ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility? It
> wouldn't matter if the first one had only a tiny fraction of the
> throughput
> desired if if could replicate itself.
Not too far from a von Neumann machine there.
> Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass driver,
> and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the
> time.
That comes later, once in situ production occurs on a regular basis. First,
import the colonial, power and construction equipment. Then, import the
manufacturing and mining equipment. Then, build the means to improve power
generation, mining and manufacturing. Then build the HEO plant. Then secede
from EarthGov, using the threat of changing the aim of the several dozen
mass drivers.
Peter Stickney
Andrea Doria's only in about 150' of water.
--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.
Pat Flannery
Peter Stickney wrote:
>>Don't knock the concept; they severed and raised the props from sunk
>>ocean liner (Andrea Dorea?) they were made of phosphor bronze and
>>worth a fortune for their metal content.
>>
>>
>
>Andrea Doria's only in about 150' of water.
>
>
Titanic fans are going to want to kill me for this idea- but if one were
to put a electromagnet on a cable and just start dragging it around the
Titanic wrecksite and selling whatever comes up on it as parts of the
Titanic, you could probably come back with a pretty good return on your
investment in time and effort.
Pat
Mike Combs
>
> Not too far from a von Neumann machine there.
True. I guess the only remaining distinction might be that the replicating
systems here wouldn't necessarily need to be autonomous. I don't
necessarily know that autonomy is part of the defiinition of a von Neumann
machine, but it's what people usually think of.
> > Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass
driver,
> > and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the
> > time.
>
> That comes later, once in situ production occurs on a regular basis.
First,
> import the colonial, power and construction equipment. Then, import the
> manufacturing and mining equipment. Then, build the means to improve power
> generation, mining and manufacturing. Then build the HEO plant.
That wasnt' the view of the team which produced the only study regarding use
of lunar materials for manufacturing that NASA ever produced. They
recommended the building of the orbital ore refinery and manufacturing
facility prior to their equivalents on the lunar surface. Reasons cited
were greater availability of solar power and access to 0-G.
They only recommended ore refineries and manufacturing facilities on the
lunar surface at a later point when one might want to expand the lunar end
of the infrastructure (for example, now it's time to build Lunar Mass Driver
Two). In other words, their view was that lunar surface manufacturing only
made sense for one class of products: those whose end use was on the lunar
surface.
> Then secede
> from EarthGov, using the threat of changing the aim of the several dozen
> mass drivers.
Ah, a Heinlein fan.
Brad Guth
available hard-science and expertise of others that had been previously
mainstream worshiped, in that if such science knowledge in any way
provides rational though alternative interpretations that are the least
outside the box, whereas all of the sudden the evidence exclusions and
those brown-nosed conditional laws of physics come into play. Why is
that?
Why are thse mainstream wizards and of their mainstream God so freaking
terrestrial limited?
Of what's become nondisclosure/taboo
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.scientists/browse_frm/thread/5d5dd4ec128536f3/af7489fc47bbcc24?hl=en#af7489fc47bbcc24
Perhaps it's all another part of God's plan, as to keeping us minions
as thoroughly snookered as possible, thus every bit as dumb and dumber
to the dumbfounded point of no return. God's form of artificial
population control via LLPOF collateral damage and the horrific carnage
of the innocent, not to even mention artificially global-warming our
sorry butts to our own demise. Sounds like quite a Godly sort of plan
of action to me.
Scott Hedrick
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote in message
>They
> recommended the building of the orbital ore refinery and manufacturing
> facility prior to their equivalents on the lunar surface. Reasons cited
> were greater availability of solar power and access to 0-G.
Not a problem if you have the money up front.
Sander Vesik
>
> One interesting question: exactly how small an
> ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility could be built that, given a supply of
> ore, could build a duplicate ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility? It
> wouldn't matter if the first one had only a tiny fraction of the throughput
> desired if if could replicate itself.
The answer is that you can't build such, as refining ore is not the
main or even the hard part in constructing a refinery. There is for
example really no realistic way of going from the ore to the electrodes
used in the ore procesing.
> Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass driver,
> and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the time.
But this is dependent on 'unmetered' nuclear powered electricity on Moon.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
OM
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>But this is dependent on 'unmetered' nuclear powered electricity on Moon.
...Yeah, and there ain't no way that the local power conglomerate is
going to let *anyone* have free, unmetered AC.
OM
--
"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society
Mike Combs
A valid point, but one would need the money up front if building same on the
lunar surface as well.
Some seem to take it for granted that building an ore refinery or a
manufacturing facility on the lunar surface would for some reason be cheaper
or "easier" than same in HEO. But I tend to consider this to be a
prejudice. Certainly from a delta-V point of view, emplacement in a high
orbit would be cheaper than on the lunar surface.
Mike Combs
news:11255065...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
>
> The answer is that you can't build such, as refining ore is not the
> main or even the hard part in constructing a refinery.
I never said otherwise, nor do I see why this is an obstacle to
self-replication. To make the perfectly-legitimate point that one part of
the process is harder than the other is not to prove that the entire idea is
impossible.
> There is for
> example really no realistic way of going from the ore to the electrodes
> used in the ore procesing.
What is there about the way that we made ore processing electrodes here on
Earth which makes it impossible to do in space? Yes, I'm aware of issues of
heat rejection and water usage, but to argue that there's "no realistic way"
to do a particular thing in space seems needlessly constricting to me. Yes,
some ways of doing things on Earth must be replaced with new methods more
practical for space. In most cases (maybe not all) the new methods are more
expensive. I'm just saying let's not give up before we've even started.
Another point is that the system would not necessarily have to be at a 100%
level to still have a powerful leveraging effect. If a system could be
developed which could use lunar resources to replicate 80 or 90% of its
mass, with the rest (certainly could include electrodes, as well as other
high-tech items like circuit boards) coming up from Earth, that would still
be a tremendous leg up.
> > Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass
driver,
> > and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the
time.
>
> But this is dependent on 'unmetered' nuclear powered electricity on Moon.
Not sure why you would say this. True, the early studies talked about
landing and burying a nuke on the moon, but past a point the nuke was gone
and they were discussing solar power exclusively for the moonbase. I
suspect they sought to avoid the political complications of launching a nuke
into space, and had decided that launching lunar ore up during the lunar day
only was sufficient to keep up with the rest of the system.
Alex Terrell
Mike Combs wrote:
>
> One interesting question: exactly how small an
> ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility could be built that, given a supply of
> ore, could build a duplicate ore-refinery/manufacturing-facility? It
> wouldn't matter if the first one had only a tiny fraction of the throughput
> desired if if could replicate itself.
I describe a chemical plant here
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Constellation.htm#_Toc102840768
Most of the mass is simple stuff like tanks and piping. Even so, human
input would be needed to expand such a plant. Less so if you focus on
the simpler iron and oyggen extraction.
>
> > > And refining aluminum is *very* energy intensive....
> >
> > When you're on the moon, look up. You get lots of energy for nearly half
> the
> > time.
>
> Or alternately, we might launch the lunar ore into space via mass driver,
> and process it in HEO, in which case we've got lots of energy all the time.
>
I propose a bit of both, but using Space Solar Power from L1 to supply
the lunar base 28 by 28.
jimmy
>"Scott Hedrick" <din...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:wr7Re.1637$xw1....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote in message
>> news:df26an$j94$1...@home.itg.ti.com...
>> >They
>> > recommended the building of the orbital ore refinery and manufacturing
>> > facility prior to their equivalents on the lunar surface. Reasons cited
>> > were greater availability of solar power and access to 0-G.
>>
>> Not a problem if you have the money up front.
>
>A valid point, but one would need the money up front if building same on the
>lunar surface as well.
>
>Some seem to take it for granted that building an ore refinery or a
>manufacturing facility on the lunar surface would for some reason be cheaper
>or "easier" than same in HEO. But I tend to consider this to be a
>prejudice. Certainly from a delta-V point of view, emplacement in a high
>orbit would be cheaper than on the lunar surface.
Really? Do you have a cost analysis that shows shooting ore into
orbit for processing is cheaper than launching only the finished
product?
What about the waste left over from the refining process? In
space, it is going to cost a lot to send it somewhere. On the moon,
cart it out a few hundred feet/yards and dump it. Better yet, see if
it can be used in some kind of concrete like is done here on earth.
If you have any hard cost figures, please post them.
Also, existing ore refinement relies on gravity. Has a reliable and
SAFE method been developed for zero-g smelting? Spill hot, molten
metal on the ground and it stays there. In zero-g what happens if a
spill floats into crew containment area?
Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g? I
don't think so. You have to be tied down to do anything or something
as insignificant as pushing a button "launches" you. On the lunar
surface, large parts could be moved by hand or small cranes. Put
something down and it stays in place. This is a real advantage when
working.
Another item the lunar surface would provide is shielding. Dig
some tunnels. In space, you will need lots of shielding. Solar flares
happen and you don't have the Earth's magnetic field to shield you.
You apparently have read some material that proposes building
refineries in space. However, I doubt that those proposals would be
cost effective or as safe as a lunar surface operation. There are a
lot of things that have been dreamed up but in the final analysis,
they just aren't feasible.
--
Jim
Joe Strout
jimmy <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> "Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
> >
> >Some seem to take it for granted that building an ore refinery or a
> >manufacturing facility on the lunar surface would for some reason be cheaper
> >or "easier" than same in HEO. But I tend to consider this to be a
> >prejudice. Certainly from a delta-V point of view, emplacement in a high
> >orbit would be cheaper than on the lunar surface.
> ...
> Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g? I
> don't think so.
I assure you he has, probably a lot more than you have. Mike has been
posting thoughtful comments and other sensible material about zero-g
manufacturing and habitats for years now. He's written essays on the
subject and explored possible consequences in story form. None of this
means that he's correct, of course, but it certainly does demonstrate
that he's thought about it quite a lot.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Alex Terrell
habitat is dominated by shielding requirements.
> Also, existing ore refinement relies on gravity. Has a reliable and
> SAFE method been developed for zero-g smelting? Spill hot, molten
> metal on the ground and it stays there. In zero-g what happens if a
> spill floats into crew containment area?
>
Needs some learning, but shouldn't be insurmountable. In some ways,
lack og gravity could help. It's possible to maintain things apart. It
also suits continuous processes.
> Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g? I
> don't think so. You have to be tied down to do anything or something
> as insignificant as pushing a button "launches" you. On the lunar
> surface, large parts could be moved by hand or small cranes. Put
> something down and it stays in place. This is a real advantage when
> working.
>
Again, quite a lot to learn here. I think large scale working - like
joining 1,000 ton components, extruding km2 segments should be easier
in zero g. Small scale work would be harder. However, most smallscale
work (outfitting) would take place under rotational gravity.
> Another item the lunar surface would provide is shielding. Dig
> some tunnels. In space, you will need lots of shielding. Solar flares
> happen and you don't have the Earth's magnetic field to shield you.
>
Agree here - large amounts of matter are more readily available on the
moon.
> You apparently have read some material that proposes building
> refineries in space. However, I doubt that those proposals would be
> cost effective or as safe as a lunar surface operation. There are a
> lot of things that have been dreamed up but in the final analysis,
> they just aren't feasible.
>
I tend to agree - given our current knowledge. I would restrict space
building to what needs to be built in space. Like solar film.
> --
Alan Anderson
> What about the waste left over from the refining process? In
> space, it is going to cost a lot to send it somewhere...
>
> ...In space, you will need lots of shielding. Solar flares
> happen and you don't have the Earth's magnetic field to shield you.
To a good first approximation, these two "problems" solve each other.
jimmy
And exactly what are you going to use to hold the slag together?
You will need to boost a binder material from either Earth or Lunar
surface. The shielding is relatively "free" on the Lunar surface.
The cost of boosting ore rather than finished/refined metal into Lunar
orbit makes the surface refinery win hands down. You make in orbit
only what you need in orbit.
--
Jim
jimmy
>In article <248ch11tbqr6uoqu3...@4ax.com>,
> jimmy <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> "Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
>> >
>> >Some seem to take it for granted that building an ore refinery or a
>> >manufacturing facility on the lunar surface would for some reason be cheaper
>> >or "easier" than same in HEO. But I tend to consider this to be a
>> >prejudice. Certainly from a delta-V point of view, emplacement in a high
>> >orbit would be cheaper than on the lunar surface.
>> ...
>> Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g? I
>> don't think so.
>
>I assure you he has, probably a lot more than you have. Mike has been
>posting thoughtful comments and other sensible material about zero-g
>manufacturing and habitats for years now. He's written essays on the
>subject and explored possible consequences in story form. None of this
>means that he's correct, of course, but it certainly does demonstrate
>that he's thought about it quite a lot.
>
Thinking about something a lot does not guarantee a working, viable
solution. You cannot assure me that Mike has taken my points into
consideration. "Thoughtful" is not simply posting generalizations
that we need to refine ore in orbit no matter how many times you
repeat it. Until hard cost figures are calculated, all the
speculation in the universe is worthless. So far, all that has been
posted is "we need to build the refineries in orbit" with no cost
figures.
You, Mike or anyone else is welcome to do a cost analysis. Take
any Lunar ore as a starting point. What percentage is end product?
What does it cost to boost it into Lunar orbit? Use existing
technology. All else is "what if" speculation.
Working in zero-g is VERY dangerous compared to the gravity
environment on Earth or Moon. Drop a wrench in space and you lose it.
Drop it on your toe while Earthbound and you might say "ouch" before
simply picking it up. The same goes for Lunar work except you would
say "ouch" only for a very large wrench! <grin>
Also, we rely on gravity in many manufacturing processes, especially
so in metal smelting. I've seen one mill accident in person. A
glowing red bar snaked across a floor. A worker hooked it and
--
Jim
Alex Terrell
in the void.
(Must remember that one as an insult)
Dale
>Put the slag in the void.
>
>(Must remember that one as an insult)
As a polite shorthand for "send the child-molesting troll
to killfile hell", huh? I like it.
Dale
Andre Lieven
jimmy (ro...@127.0.0.1) writes:
> Joe Strout <j...@strout.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <248ch11tbqr6uoqu3...@4ax.com>,
>> jimmy <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Some seem to take it for granted that building an ore refinery or a
>>> >manufacturing facility on the lunar surface would for some reason be
>>> >cheaper or "easier" than same in HEO. But I tend to consider this
>>> >to be a prejudice. Certainly from a delta-V point of view,
>>> >emplacement in a high orbit would be cheaper than on the lunar
>>> >surface.
>>> ...
>>> Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g? I
>>> don't think so.
>>
>>I assure you he has, probably a lot more than you have. Mike has been
>>posting thoughtful comments and other sensible material about zero-g
>>manufacturing and habitats for years now. He's written essays on the
>>subject and explored possible consequences in story form. None of this
>>means that he's correct, of course, but it certainly does demonstrate
>>that he's thought about it quite a lot.
>
> Thinking about something a lot does not guarantee a working, viable
> solution.
Its a better way than not thinking...
> You cannot assure me that Mike has taken my points into
> consideration. "Thoughtful" is not simply posting generalizations
> that we need to refine ore in orbit no matter how many times you
> repeat it. Until hard cost figures are calculated, all the
> speculation in the universe is worthless.
Including yours...
> So far, all that has been
> posted is "we need to build the refineries in orbit" with no cost
> figures.
>
> You, Mike or anyone else is welcome to do a cost analysis. Take
> any Lunar ore as a starting point. What percentage is end product?
> What does it cost to boost it into Lunar orbit? Use existing
> technology. All else is "what if" speculation.
OK then, lets see *your* numbers...
> Working in zero-g is VERY dangerous compared to the gravity
> environment on Earth or Moon.
As Gene Cernan found that out some 38 years ago, thanks for the
breaking news there.
But then, Buzz Andrin showed, and most spacewalkers have shown as
well since, that, if you do good preps before going out, and don't
get stupid, its a reasonable proposition.
Even if your job is to remove two shims out from under an Orbiter.
> Drop a wrench in space and you lose it.
Not if its on a line, you don't.
> Drop it on your toe while Earthbound and you might say "ouch" before
> simply picking it up. The same goes for Lunar work except you would
> say "ouch" only for a very large wrench! <grin>
>
> Also, we rely on gravity in many manufacturing processes, especially
> so in metal smelting.
Some allow production would work better in microgravity, since the
different masses of the materials being mixed wouldn't separate
them out in the mix.
> I've seen one mill accident in person. A
> glowing red bar snaked across a floor. A worker hooked it and
What ?
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Sander Vesik
> > example really no realistic way of going from the ore to the electrodes
> > used in the ore procesing.
>
> What is there about the way that we made ore processing electrodes here on
> Earth which makes it impossible to do in space? Yes, I'm aware of issues of
> heat rejection and water usage, but to argue that there's "no realistic way"
> to do a particular thing in space seems needlessly constricting to me. Yes,
> some ways of doing things on Earth must be replaced with new methods more
> practical for space. In most cases (maybe not all) the new methods are more
> expensive. I'm just saying let's not give up before we've even started.
The main - and rather fundamental - problem is the lack of carbon on Moon.
No carbon => no way to make carbon anodes for smelting. All the carbon
anode alternatives are worse on Moon if you look at availability of
materials. It might be possible on Meteorites (*might*), but even so you
need some serious ways of concentrating carbon.
>
> Another point is that the system would not necessarily have to be at a 100%
> level to still have a powerful leveraging effect. If a system could be
> developed which could use lunar resources to replicate 80 or 90% of its
> mass, with the rest (certainly could include electrodes, as well as other
> high-tech items like circuit boards) coming up from Earth, that would still
> be a tremendous leg up.
But why? I'm not sure there would be a big need for large, inefficent
but self-replicating refining/smelting/casting/drilling/metal machining
machine?
penguinista
> The main - and rather fundamental - problem is the lack of carbon on Moon.
> No carbon => no way to make carbon anodes for smelting. All the carbon
> anode alternatives are worse on Moon if you look at availability of
> materials. It might be possible on Meteorites (*might*), but even so you
> need some serious ways of concentrating carbon.
>
producing CO2, which if carbon is scarce would need to be collected and
cracked back to carbon and oxygen.
Mike Combs
>
> The main - and rather fundamental - problem is the lack of carbon on Moon.
> No carbon => no way to make carbon anodes for smelting. All the carbon
> anode alternatives are worse on Moon if you look at availability of
> materials.
Ah, I see your point. Yes, anything involving carbon (or nitrogen) will
probably necessitate shipments from Earth. So it might be more realistic to
ask the question, "How much closure could be achieved with a replicating
system on the moon?" than "How can we build a 100% replicating system on the
moon?"
> It might be possible on Meteorites (*might*), but even so you
> need some serious ways of concentrating carbon.
Yeah, maybe one might luck out and find an impact from a large carbonaceous
chondrite. But that's speculative.
> But why? I'm not sure there would be a big need for large, inefficent
> but self-replicating refining/smelting/casting/drilling/metal machining
> machine?
Obviously the speculation is in the context of a desire to industrialize
either the moon or cislunar space. The advantage of self-replication (even
if only partial) is ramping up to a large level of industrial capability
starting from small initial payloads.
Mike Combs
news:1125521573.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Most of the mass is simple stuff like tanks and piping. Even so, human
> input would be needed to expand such a plant.
That's a point Jerry Pournelle tried unsuccessfully to argue to the NASA
study group looking at lunar replicators.
> I propose a bit of both, but using Space Solar Power from L1 to supply
> the lunar base 28 by 28.
Yeah, I'd say that's a sure bet over the long term.
Mike Combs
news:248ch11tbqr6uoqu3...@4ax.com...
>
> Really? Do you have a cost analysis that shows shooting ore into
> orbit for processing is cheaper than launching only the finished
> product?
I'm certainly cognizant of the fact that finished product would mass less
than the ore. But there are two issues here. One is that many classes of
finished products would be limited in the amount of G-forces they could
sustain without damage. Ore can always be launched at the full 1,800 G's
demonstrated for masss driver technology. Lower accelleration launchers
will be much longer and hence more expensive to emplace. Shorter length
launchers (160 meters for the above accelleration) are more plausible in the
near term.
The other issue is that if our assumptions include any significant number of
human beings beyond LEO, then we have to assume large amounts of radiation
sheilding. The proposal is to use the slag left over from the orbital
smelting operation. If this material were unavailable for shielding, then
the same amount of some other mass would have to be lifted in any case.
> Better yet, see if
> it can be used in some kind of concrete like is done here on earth.
And that's a better yet solution in orbit as well (though it's apt to be
more comparable to cast basalt than concrete.
> Also, existing ore refinement relies on gravity. Has a reliable and
> SAFE method been developed for zero-g smelting?
Unnecessary. Refining the ores in orbit doesn't mean having to refine them
in 0-G. For any operation where some level of gravity is advantageous, a
portion of the orbital facility can rotate so that centrifugal force can
substitute for gravity.
> Have you thought about the difficulties of working in zero-g?
Your points are valid, but I beseech you to remain open-minded to the
possibility that there are difficulties associated with working and building
in gravity which we are slow to recognize because we don't have the choice
here on Earth. When I see astronauts moving equipment racks into place on
the ISS which are nearly the size of my refrigerator, it makes me a bit
envious, especially when I have to move a large piece of funiture from one
part of the house to another.
> Another item the lunar surface would provide is shielding. Dig
> some tunnels. In space, you will need lots of shielding. Solar flares
> happen and you don't have the Earth's magnetic field to shield you.
The justification for launching ore and hanging onto the slag I mentioned
earlier. But granted, on the moon one can pile on soil prior to any kind of
processing. I don't think this all by itself overcomes such disadvantages
as being cut off from solar power half the time, however.
> You apparently have read some material that proposes building
> refineries in space.
Yeah, that would be the only studies NASA ever produced on the subject of
use of lunar materials for industrialization.
Mike Combs
>
> Thinking about something a lot does not guarantee a working, viable
> solution. You cannot assure me that Mike has taken my points into
> consideration.
True. Only my (hopefully complete) reply to you can provide that assurance.
> "Thoughtful" is not simply posting generalizations
> that we need to refine ore in orbit no matter how many times you
> repeat it. Until hard cost figures are calculated, all the
> speculation in the universe is worthless. So far, all that has been
> posted is "we need to build the refineries in orbit" with no cost
> figures.
I'm not arguing from a vaccum here. I'm citing the NASA Summer Study on
space settlement:
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Design.html
You won't have to depend on my numbers because I haven't done any. I'm
citing their findings and recommendations.
> Working in zero-g is VERY dangerous compared to the gravity
> environment on Earth or Moon. Drop a wrench in space and you lose it.
> Drop it on your toe while Earthbound and you might say "ouch" before
> simply picking it up. The same goes for Lunar work except you would
> say "ouch" only for a very large wrench! <grin>
I'm smiling because I'm remembering the last time I was involved in this
argument about how /dangerous/ it was to work in 0-G. But then the other
guy moved from this specific topic to the more general point that
construction work of any kind is hazardous. He then told two stories about
deaths he'd witnessed: One involved a plummet down an elevator shaft, the
other a building frame falling on two workers. I found it ironic that in
both his stories, the workers died as a direct result of the operation of
gravity here on Earth.
Mike Combs
> I'd suggest aluminium plates, about 2mm thick, 1m apart. Put the slag
> in the void.
That might work. Or alternately (going back to the Summer Study again) the
slag could be sintered into shield components using molds at the focus of a
large solar mirror.
Agreed, the notion of sending up binder material from Earth is a
non-starter, but it's unnecessary.
Scott Hedrick
> What about the waste left over from the refining process?
I hadn't thought of that. You certainly can't let it accumulate, and you
can't simply toss it away. Quite a bit of it can be used for shielding.
Perhaps the tailings can be pressed into shape for use as shielding, for
both the processing station and other uses. Of course, that will only
account for a very small fraction.
Scott Hedrick
"Alex Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125569960.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> in the void.
If you just toss it out the airlock, it *will come back*, usually a half
orbit later. Even if it doesn't, it's a navigation hazard.
Scott Hedrick
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:df657g$jqh$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> I've seen one mill accident in person. A
>> glowing red bar snaked across a floor. A worker hooked it and
>
> What ?
And promptly got arresting for being a pimp, of course.
jimmy
>"jimmy" <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:uuqch1h0352mjbser...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Thinking about something a lot does not guarantee a working, viable
>> solution. You cannot assure me that Mike has taken my points into
>> consideration.
>
>True. Only my (hopefully complete) reply to you can provide that assurance.
>
>> "Thoughtful" is not simply posting generalizations
>> that we need to refine ore in orbit no matter how many times you
>> repeat it. Until hard cost figures are calculated, all the
>> speculation in the universe is worthless. So far, all that has been
>> posted is "we need to build the refineries in orbit" with no cost
>> figures.
>
>I'm not arguing from a vaccum here. I'm citing the NASA Summer Study on
>space settlement:
>http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Design.html
Do you really trust an agency that wasted the lives of another
shuttle crew due to a known problem? Not me. That "study" is a lot
of speculation and includes a design contest for students. The
"study" is NOT in any manner a "plan" of what we can/should be doing
in space. I'd suggest reading the whole web site but here are some
references that apply to our discussion.
The NASA web site discusses the far future and has a lot of hype and
speculation. See the "Babylon 5" type picture on that web site at:
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/basics_who.html
That page says:
"Space settlements will be a place for ordinary people."
I don't see that happening due to the cost to get a payload into
orbit. See below.
From the same web site:
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/index.html
"In time, we may see hundreds of thousands of orbital space
settlement in our solar system alone."
We can't even get the ISS finished without losing a shuttle. Good
luck on getting 100,000 or even 1,000 orbital facilities built.
>You won't have to depend on my numbers because I haven't done any. I'm
>citing their findings and recommendations.
Always find out the costs up front! I found some REAL LIFE numbers
for you. I already knew the cost would be prohibitive. The TitanIV
specs can be found at:
http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/Library/FactSheets/FactsSheets.asp?FactChoice=20
Titan IVB launch cost is $250,000,000 to $350,000,000 but let us
use the lowest cost.
Low orbit capacity: 47,800 lbs.
Geosynchronous orbit capacity : 12,700
$250,000,000 / 47,800 = a bit over $5,000 per pound.
$250,000,000 / 12,700 = a bit under $20,000 per pound.
Divide by six to take into account the weaker lunar gravity and it
will still cost several hundred $ per pound to achieve low orbit and a
few thousand for geosynchronous orbit. Now, do you really want to
send raw ore into orbit for processing? I didn't think so. <grin>
You only send things into orbit that are to be used in orbit or are
going to another planet or moon.
OTOH, if Bussard comes through with his fusion reactor and
propulsion, the situation changes drastically. However, wanting and
wishing and speculating on things that do not exist at this time won't
build an orbital refinery.
>> Working in zero-g is VERY dangerous compared to the gravity
>> environment on Earth or Moon. Drop a wrench in space and you lose it.
>> Drop it on your toe while Earthbound and you might say "ouch" before
>> simply picking it up. The same goes for Lunar work except you would
>> say "ouch" only for a very large wrench! <grin>
>
>I'm smiling because I'm remembering the last time I was involved in this
>argument about how /dangerous/ it was to work in 0-G. But then the other
>guy moved from this specific topic to the more general point that
>construction work of any kind is hazardous. He then told two stories about
>deaths he'd witnessed: One involved a plummet down an elevator shaft, the
>other a building frame falling on two workers. I found it ironic that in
>both his stories, the workers died as a direct result of the operation of
>gravity here on Earth.
The weaker lunar gravity would be a blessing to manufacturing and
hopefully reduce gravity induced injuries. The particular type of
manufacturing I think this thread was about is ore
processing/refining. That is something that would be difficult in
zero-g, unsafe and costly due to boosting raw ore into orbit.
In orbit, NOTHING stays put unless you tie it down or enclose it.
For metal refining, you would need a completely enclosed system. You
would need to spin the furnace to allow skimming slag. Spring a leak
and you have molten metal spewing all over. And so on. I've been in
manufacturing since the early seventies and the pie in the sky
orbiting factory won't work except for finishing products.
Oh! I forgot the time factor! Watch astronauts work in zero-g
sometime. Ever notice that it takes over ten times as long to
accomplish something in space as it does back here on Earth with its
awful gravity? Need a wrench here on Terra Firma? Walk across the
shop and in 10 seconds you have your wrench. In that time, an
astronaut will get turned around and take a step or two.
Folks, I think everyone proposing orbiting refineries (actually
foundries) simply lacks experience in manufacturing. It is hard to
explain things one at a time that have been learned over the past
three decades. I apologize for my shortcomings in that regard.
Now, if Lunar He3 is to be mined for fusion, let us mine it and
process it on the moon and ship the refined product to Earth for
reactors.
--
Jim