Good-news, bad-news; 10th planet, protomoon or dead Earth
Brad Guth
protoplanet or possibly protomoon Sedna of 1800 km at 2+ g/cm3 that
should go into terraforming Venus) that's supposedly a bit more massive
and perhaps nearly as dense as Pluto means many things to different
folks.
First of all, it's super terrific to know about such items of any
potential 3400 km size, as perhaps made of a whole lot more than just
H2O/ice and CO2/ice. Thus even the initial estimate of 1.6+ g/cm3
(considering the overall potential volume of a 3400 km sphere) still
seems rather impressive for something so large and actually at times 36
AU as not all that much further away than Pluto.
Bad news; What this actually represents is that of such icy items much
smaller than Sedna are clearly not being so easily identified, thus
untracked and/or untrackable at the current levels of applied
technology and, who the hell knows what's actually out there as to run
into. Obviously if a Kuiper belt or whatever Oort cloud worth of some
item much bigger than a breadbox manages to get with some terminal
velocity, as then as such it becomes somewhat comet like. Even though
the comet core can be relatively small it can be more easily identified
and thus tracked and subsequently avoided and/or plotted as to exactly
when that little sucker is going to pass nearby, or God forbid impact
mother Earth.
However, not everything Kuiper/Oort is going to be that of such a slow
moving icy snowball of such a low density object, whereas the likes of
a few 8+ g/cm3 class of somewhat metallic infused objects as merely
cloaked in a layer of ice might actually be the more common though
smaller of items which we obviously haven't a freaking clue about any
of those suckers as having our name (Earth) engraved into their
potentially lethal high density surface. I'll have to guess the good
news about the billions if not greater numbers of such potentially
Earth-killer items available, is that because we're continually at war
over the remainders of fossil energy resources and otherwise as a
direct result of our own resident warlord policy that sucks, chances
are fairly good that much like those invisible/stealth WMD, there's
probably absolutely nothing that we could do about moderating our
impending collateral damage and carnage should one of those nearly
coal-black items have taken a slow but deliberate trek worth of a sneak
attack or sucker-punch notion upon merging with our planet, or even as
per impacting our extremely nearby moon isn't exactly playing it safe,
especially should a few thousand or possibly a mega tonne worth of
lunar basalt get displaced and thus most likely headed for pulverising
Earth could actually be nearly as bad off as for being the primary
incoming intended target.
The arrival of a mere m3 at 8 g/cm3 is going to leave a fairly
impressive impact crater. At a mere 1000 m3 and 8 g/cm3 (8,000 tonnes)
it's going to hurt real bad. Given a cubic kilometer item of 8 g/cm3
which obviously becomes worth 8 gigatonnes could still remain as below
our best radar and most other forms of such WMD detection, that is
until it's a wee bit too late and, for that size and likely final
velocity of such a nasty Kuiper/Oort item we can kiss the likes of
Texas goodbye and plan upon losing sight of our sun for another year or
so. Thus it seems we need to have established those energy efficient
robotic deployed SAR apertures, of an efficient and highly effective
imaging detection method as deployed upon our moon, along with a
terrestrial VLA as having their receiving apertures placed 384,000 km
away should give us the sort of imaging resolution advantage worth
having. That is if we ever expect to long-range detect upon the 1 m3
sorts of nasty items that'll either have to be carefully avoided in the
near future and/or perhaps diverted into our sun if not intentionally
impacted into our moon for safe keeping, thus somewhat artificially
creating a bit more lunar atmosphere at the same time.
What's still keeping us from robotically deploying such small and
energy efficient radar image receiving apertures upon our moon?
a. we don't seem to actually have a viable fly-by-rocket lander
b. our government is still covering their perpetrated cold-war butt
c. we're too well snookered and thus easily dumbfounded to actually
care about the truth
d. folks would much rather spend hundreds of billions if not a trillion
for getting humans onto Mars
d. all of the above
~
Don't look: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within the
ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by; Brad
Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Brad Guth
bad-news; 10th planet, protomoon or dead Earth":
After nearly 40 years and counting; what's still keeping us from
robotically deploying such small and energy efficient radar image
receiving apertures upon our moon?
a. we don't seem to actually have a viable fly-by-rocket lander
b. our government is still covering thy perpetrated cold-war butts
until them NASA/Apollo cows come home
c. we're still too well snookered and thus easily dumbfounded to
actually care about the truth
d. folks would much rather spend hundreds of billions if not a trillion
for getting humans onto Mars
e. we should not worry ourselves over matters of which we obviously
can't do anything constructive about
f. we should only focus our expertise, talents and remaining resources
upon humanly unobtainable goals
g. keeping our home land security fires burning and the collateral
damage ongoing is our priority No.1
h. all of the above
Is not having an efficient 1 m/pixel resolution and of 8 bits/pixel as
of Saturn and closer worth doing?
Is not having a 0.01 m/pixel and perhaps at 16 bit resolution of the
surface of our own moon worth squat?
~
Don't look: in spite of our orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as situated within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy topics by;
Henk Boonsma
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122906769.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Good news; 10th planet (not even including the fairly massive
> protoplanet or possibly protomoon Sedna of 1800 km at 2+ g/cm3 that
> should go into terraforming Venus) that's supposedly a bit more massive
> and perhaps nearly as dense as Pluto means many things to different
> folks.
>
Some people have noted that there may be Pluto sized Kuiper belt objects all
the way up to half the distance to the nearest star-system (Alpha Centauri).
Are we going to classify all these as planets if we classify this Kuiper
belt object as a planet? Let's face it, Pluto was a mistake to be classified
as planet and let's keep it at that!
stork
planets?
Jer
And don't you think George Holst is in a frenzy right now trying to
think of a new movement for his work and trying to come up with a
catchy tune that evokes the word "2003 UB313".
T Wake
"stork" <tban...@mightyware.com> wrote in message
news:1122913561.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Why is it so bad to think of our solar system as having thousands of
> planets?
>
Where does one solar system end and the next start if you allow all the
bodies between them to become planets?
Cardman
wrote:
>Good news; 10th planet (not even including the fairly massive
>protoplanet or possibly protomoon Sedna of 1800 km at 2+ g/cm3 that
>should go into terraforming Venus) that's supposedly a bit more massive
>and perhaps nearly as dense as Pluto means many things to different
>folks.
These are simply the initial KBO finds. Just wait until they find the
more massive objects.
>First of all, it's super terrific to know about such items of any
>potential 3400 km size, as perhaps made of a whole lot more than just
>H2O/ice and CO2/ice.
No known KBO is up to 3400km in size yet. AFAIK at least. Xena [2003
UB313] is estimated to be up to a maximum size of 3000km, but it
should fit in around 2300 to 3000km.
All of 3400km is as big as the Moon. The density should be a little
less I guess, when all of these are mostly dirty ice.
Then there is the case of Sedna [2003 VB12]. Red like Mars and assumed
to be a borrowed planet from another passing solar system. Thou was
not born here.
>Thus even the initial estimate of 1.6+ g/cm3
>(considering the overall potential volume of a 3400 km sphere) still
>seems rather impressive for something so large and actually at times 36
>AU as not all that much further away than Pluto.
What the hell are you talking about? Xena, the largest KBO to date, is
at 97 AU. Your 36 AU is before Pluto's average orbit of 39.481 AU.
>Bad news; What this actually represents is that of such icy items much
>smaller than Sedna are clearly not being so easily identified, thus
>untracked and/or untrackable at the current levels of applied
>technology
I would not say that. This whole Planet X thing is simply "items of
special interest" within an even large scheme to track asteroids.
>and, who the hell knows what's actually out there as to run
>into. Obviously if a Kuiper belt or whatever Oort cloud worth of some
>item much bigger than a breadbox manages to get with some terminal
>velocity, as then as such it becomes somewhat comet like. Even though
>the comet core can be relatively small it can be more easily identified
>and thus tracked and subsequently avoided and/or plotted as to exactly
>when that little sucker is going to pass nearby, or God forbid impact
>mother Earth.
The problem with your theory of "a rain of killer snowballs" is that
Space is a huge empty place. And you would certainly have to travel a
very long distance before you ever bumped into something worthy of
note.
>However, not everything Kuiper/Oort is going to be that of such a slow
>moving icy snowball of such a low density object, whereas the likes of
>a few 8+ g/cm3 class of somewhat metallic infused objects as merely
>cloaked in a layer of ice
Ice does will enough on it's own, when traveling at a high relative
velocity. NASA's solid metal Deep Impact craft went head to head with
one of these dirty snowballs recently. It lost.
>might actually be the more common though
>smaller of items which we obviously haven't a freaking clue about any
>of those suckers
Working on paranoia?
>as having our name (Earth) engraved into their
>potentially lethal high density surface.
It is a question of mass. Earth would win that one. It even once took
on a Mars sized planet and won. The trophy of that victory currently
is located above your head.
>I'll have to guess the good
>news about the billions if not greater numbers of such potentially
>Earth-killer items available, is that because we're continually at war
>over the remainders of fossil energy resources and otherwise as a
>direct result of our own resident warlord policy that sucks, chances
>are fairly good that much like those invisible/stealth WMD, there's
>probably absolutely nothing that we could do about moderating our
>impending collateral damage and carnage should one of those nearly
>coal-black items have taken a slow but deliberate trek worth of a sneak
>attack or sucker-punch notion upon merging with our planet,
Almost strange that you have lived this long without yet being killed
in a killer asteroid impact. Does once every 100,000 years mean
anything to you?
>or even as
>per impacting our extremely nearby moon isn't exactly playing it safe,
>especially should a few thousand or possibly a mega tonne worth of
>lunar basalt get displaced and thus most likely headed for pulverising
>Earth could actually be nearly as bad off as for being the primary
>incoming intended target.
It could also go in many other directions as well.
>The arrival of a mere m3 at 8 g/cm3 is going to leave a fairly
>impressive impact crater. At a mere 1000 m3 and 8 g/cm3 (8,000 tonnes)
>it's going to hurt real bad. Given a cubic kilometer item of 8 g/cm3
>which obviously becomes worth 8 gigatonnes could still remain as below
>our best radar and most other forms of such WMD detection, that is
>until it's a wee bit too late and, for that size and likely final
>velocity of such a nasty Kuiper/Oort item we can kiss the likes of
>Texas goodbye and plan upon losing sight of our sun for another year or
>so.
It seems that someone seems to be ignoring that the Kuiper Belt and
Oort Cloud are a very long distance from Earth. That is not to say
that some of those objects don't come wondering our way, but us locals
tend to just admire those comet tails.
>Thus it seems we need to have established those energy efficient
>robotic deployed SAR apertures, of an efficient and highly effective
>imaging detection method as deployed upon our moon, along with a
>terrestrial VLA as having their receiving apertures placed 384,000 km
>away should give us the sort of imaging resolution advantage worth
>having. That is if we ever expect to long-range detect upon the 1 m3
>sorts of nasty items that'll either have to be carefully avoided in the
>near future and/or perhaps diverted into our sun if not intentionally
>impacted into our moon for safe keeping, thus somewhat artificially
>creating a bit more lunar atmosphere at the same time.
Detection of asteroids seems to be going well enough and is improving
over time.
>What's still keeping us from robotically deploying such small and
>energy efficient radar image receiving apertures upon our moon?
Maybe because Space is a lot bigger than the Earth-Moon system.
>a. we don't seem to actually have a viable fly-by-rocket lander
>b. our government is still covering their perpetrated cold-war butt
>c. we're too well snookered and thus easily dumbfounded to actually
>care about the truth
>d. folks would much rather spend hundreds of billions if not a trillion
>for getting humans onto Mars
>d. all of the above
So in all this you are in fear of being squashed by Xena, or one of
her KBO friends. I would hate to tell you about the other ways that we
could all die.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
I somewhat agree that 9 is perhaps a few more than our fair share of
supposed planets. Whereas the likes of Pluto as a Kuiper and now a few
larger and smaller Oort zone worth of such icy items should be at most
considered as protomoons, that someday we might have the applied
technology as to directing such into orbiting the likes of Venus.
How extensive is the Oort cloud and items within that's associated with
the Sirius star system?
~
Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
Henk Boonsma
"Jer" <jer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122915569.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
LOL
It's Gustav Holst...
Cardman
<hboo...@teranet.news> wrote:
>Some people have noted that there may be Pluto sized Kuiper belt objects all
>the way up to half the distance to the nearest star-system (Alpha Centauri).
Certainly.
>Are we going to classify all these as planets if we classify this Kuiper
>belt object as a planet? Let's face it, Pluto was a mistake to be classified
>as planet and let's keep it at that!
Just because you cannot list all the planets in your mind does not
make it wrong.
If anything it is just a simple case of humans being the center of the
Universe again. Lets ignore all those remote planets because we only
want to count the ones close to our warm Sun.
What is the matter? Does the notion of 1000 planets in our solar
system scare you? Does the sudden size increase of our safe and known
solar system cause you to have nightmares?
The problem with your idea is that now we have our first KBO that is
larger than Pluto. And I can assure you that this is not the end of
this story by a long way.
Out there will be objects as large as Mercury, Mars and even Earth. I
would even be willing to predict that there could well be a couple of
gas giants as well.
It would also be wrong to class all these as simply oversized ice
packed asteroids. For example Sedna is Red like Mars is. And there is
sure to be many other surprises to be found.
And had you looked at these objects then certainly many of them will
look like planets. So at some point you are doing to have to draw your
line. There is only one answer. Our solar system does really contain
an estimated 1000 planets.
Deal with it.
Cardman.
Pat Flannery
Cardman wrote:
>
>Then there is the case of Sedna [2003 VB12]. Red like Mars and assumed
>to be a borrowed planet from another passing solar system. Thou was
>not born here.
>
>
And if that isn't a springboard to an Italian science fiction movie
script, nothing is.
Once again those same three Bonestell-looking spaceships must journey
into the void, smoky flames rising behind them.
First, we get Dr. Fiorella Terenzi into the tightest, most form-fitting
chrome spacesuit you've ever laid eyes on.
Then...
Oh, who cares? That'll be worth the ticket price all on its own! ;-)
Pat
Cardman
wrote:
If they are planets or not does not change the fact that they are
still an important part of our solar system.
And I can also assure you that it will be easy enough to tell what
belong to our solar system and what does not. As if it is a part of
our system, then so will it move in the same general direction as our
sun.
Still, it also seems true to say that you could find many wondering
planets that were not born in our system. Finding Sedna so soon seems
to highlight that this could be quite common.
As when two solar systems pass each other, then their Oort clouds pass
through each other. Indeed even a star can and has passed directly
through our Oort cloud.
So that scatters these planets in all directions, where we gain some
of their ones and we lose some of our ones. It would be quite
interesting if one of these large objects passed through our inner
solar system before going back out.
The good news is that these changes happen so slowly that you can
indeed catalog what is in our solar system.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
Thanks for all of the corrective feedback. Your 3000 km icy orb is
probably a bit closer to the mark.
> What the hell are you talking about? Xena, the largest KBO to date, is
> at 97 AU. Your 36 AU is before Pluto's average orbit of 39.481 AU.
Perhaps I'm keeping my cart too far ahead of the horse again. I believe
somewhere it's posted that in roughly 280 some odd years the orbit of
this 10th planet, or rather icy protomoon, is coming to within 36 AU,
which is obviously still way out there.
> The problem with your theory of "a rain of killer snowballs" is that
> Space is a huge empty place. And you would certainly have to travel a
> very long distance before you ever bumped into something worthy of
> note.
That's certainly good to realize that no matters how white cane
outfitted our future is, that we shouldn't bother wasting our talents,
and resources upon whatever's worthy of being an Earth killer or that
of an extended space travel form of unfortunate termination. Thus
perhaps we should focus upon whatever's nearby and therefore humanly
obtainable, such as our moon and that of Venus.
> It is a question of mass. Earth would win that one. It even once took
> on a Mars sized planet and won. The trophy of that victory currently
> is located above your head.
Are you "working on paranoia" or just pretending that your
social/political skewed conditional laws of physics are good enough,
even though you haven't a shred of hard-science as truth in suppost of
such a claim?
BTW
As long as we're taking a few lose cannon shots in the dark; Is there
any chance that your "Mars sized planet" was actually a wee bit larger,
say Venus sized or, perhaps even a bit smaller, such as an
icy-protomoon sized item of possibly 4000 km?
>> What's still keeping us from robotically deploying such small and
>> energy efficient radar image receiving apertures upon our moon?
> Maybe because Space is a lot bigger than the Earth-Moon system.
You know damn well that's not even an answer. Copping out on anything
as having to do with our moon or Venus is exactly what it is. Why all
of the nondisclosure and/or taboo/banishment as to our moon?
> Almost strange that you have lived this long without yet being killed
> in a killer asteroid impact. Does once every 100,000 years mean
> anything to you?
You bet it does. In fact, I've often utilized roughly the 105,000 year
cycle of our solar system cruising sufficiently nearby the Sirius star
system (say well within 0.086 light year), thus obviously getting
ourselves into a wee bit of an ify Oort to Oort situation, whereas our
merging Oort clouds of mostly icy items and perhaps few not so icy
items have got to be worth creating a testy time when all sorts of
nasty things might be transpiring. Somewhat of a geological RESET of
what we've called home sweet home if enough of those icy items toutch
down or even manage to bounce a few megatonnes of mostly basalt away
from our once upon a time icy moon. Does any of this "mean anything to
you"?
> So in all this you are in fear of being squashed by Xena, or one of
> her KBO friends. I would hate to tell you about the other ways that we
> could all die.
Where the heck did I even suggest fear or the likelihood of our being
impacted via Xena or whatever KBO?
I'm not the least bit fearing the likes of Texas being vaporised,
especially as long as GW Bush and of his heathen friends are residing
there at the time.
I believe that I merely suggested that if we can't hardly manage to
identify the Sedna size of what's reasonably impressive, then how are
we going to identify those potentially nastier items of being
potentially slower at times and often of much darker/stealth albedo
items of otherwise good density and, as having the potential of
becoming a worthy NEO, if not offering a bit touchy-feely since gravity
seems to have that affect upon such things as they move through space.
It seems the slower the velocity the more gravity has an opportunity as
to influence upon forming potential mergers. Of course, of whatever
bounces off something worthy is going to change the rules of survival,
whereas becoming really smart is about our only option unless we can
remain nice enough to whomever is camping out on Venus, as to their
coming to our rescue, or on behalf of offering a viable home away from
home until KBO hell gets through with pulverising mother Earth (again).
What might you suppose (perhaps wishful thinking) if those nice Venus
folks were Cathars, that as such they would give a tinkers damn about
salvaging our sorry butts?
~
Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
Joe Strout
Cardman <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote:
> As when two solar systems pass each other, then their Oort clouds pass
> through each other. Indeed even a star can and has passed directly
> through our Oort cloud.
>
> So that scatters these planets in all directions, where we gain some
> of their ones and we lose some of our ones. It would be quite
> interesting if one of these large objects passed through our inner
> solar system before going back out.
>
> The good news is that these changes happen so slowly that you can
> indeed catalog what is in our solar system.
The other good news is that, with one solar system's planetoids reaching
halfway to the next star, one can easily imagine that as the solar
system is settled, with colonies moving further and further out into the
Oort cloud, it will one day be a very simple hop to the next Oort cloud
over. In this way, we will become a multi-star-system civilization,
without ever having to invent FTL travel or invest in some big
multigenerational expedition.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Sander Vesik
> On 1 Aug 2005 07:32:49 -0700, "Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Good news; 10th planet (not even including the fairly massive
> >protoplanet or possibly protomoon Sedna of 1800 km at 2+ g/cm3 that
> >should go into terraforming Venus) that's supposedly a bit more massive
> >and perhaps nearly as dense as Pluto means many things to different
> >folks.
>
> These are simply the initial KBO finds. Just wait until they find the
> more massive objects.
>
Please note that you are talking to Brad Guth who has from time to time
not an altogether firm grasp on reality alongside with an ability to be
off by some orders of magintude and not believe it. You may get very
odd answers to what you are saying ;-)
[snip]
>
> Cardman.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Cardman
wrote:
>Henk Boonsma,
>I somewhat agree that 9 is perhaps a few more than our fair share of
>supposed planets.
Why is that? I am sure that New Horizon's taking a few photos of Pluto
will soon highlight how much of a planet looking item it really is.
>Whereas the likes of Pluto as a Kuiper and now a few
>larger and smaller Oort zone worth of such icy items should be at most
>considered as protomoons,
Ah, I see what the problem is.
For a long time you have been told that beyond Pluto, out in the Oort
Cloud, is only the remains the building blocks of the planets that we
have here.
The flaw in that concept is that since the solar system started, then
time has moved on. So planets have been built out there as well.
Also it would be wrong to class all these as "icy" worlds, where so
far they have only detected the smaller size. And well small bodies
tend to come in icy form.
Sure they don't have heat from the Sun to keep them warm out there,
but you certainly could get internal heating. So when their finds
extend into larger items, then you could have a great diversity of the
planet types.
Sedna sure is not icy. Ice does not come in red. :-]
>that someday we might have the applied
>technology as to directing such into orbiting the likes of Venus.
There we go again. Thinking that just because these items are out in
the cold dark regions that they are less worthy. And thus by bringing
them into the "light" they then become holy and worthy of our respect.
I am sorry to say that the solar system did not end at either Neptune
or Pluto. There are another 1000 estimated planets out there waiting
to be found, where only our lack in technology to detect them at such
a great distance holds us back.
So now you have Xena, bigger than Pluto. You could try declassing
Pluto, but soon enough you will have ones as big as Mercury. Would
such a KBO not be a planet due to it simply being "cold"?
People standing on a beach would not know that there is life in the
Ocean as well. Just as there are fish in the Sea, then there are
planets in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud.
>How extensive is the Oort cloud and items within that's associated with
>the Sirius star system?
Sorry, no idea.
One thing I do know is that in the future a local star will pass right
through our Oort Cloud. That will send thousands of comets, and much
larger, into the inner solar system.
It is interesting to note that previous stars passing through our Oort
Cloud can be linked to mass extinction events on Earth. One or two
passing asteroids can soon turn into a rain of ten thousand comets.
That I would say is how human life could well end.
Cardman.
Cardman
>The other good news is that, with one solar system's planetoids reaching
>halfway to the next star, one can easily imagine that as the solar
>system is settled, with colonies moving further and further out into the
>Oort cloud, it will one day be a very simple hop to the next Oort cloud
>over. In this way, we will become a multi-star-system civilization,
>without ever having to invent FTL travel or invest in some big
>multigenerational expedition.
True enough. You could even speed this up by living on a planet
heading in the right direction. A nice idea that.
Cardman.
Paul F. Dietz
> Out there will be objects as large as Mercury, Mars and even Earth. I
> would even be willing to predict that there could well be a couple of
> gas giants as well.
What's really neat (to me) about this is that a Mars or Earth
sized KBO may be able to retain a helium atmosphere. These
bodies could be the best places in the solar system to mine
helium-3, better even than Uranus (since getting back off them
to orbit will be much easier). They'll be way the hell out
there, but we'd presumably have fusion rockets (for which
D-3He is probably the ideal fuel.)
Paul
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman,
>Thanks for all of the corrective feedback. Your 3000 km icy orb is
>probably a bit closer to the mark.
I see.
>> What the hell are you talking about? Xena, the largest KBO to date, is
>> at 97 AU. Your 36 AU is before Pluto's average orbit of 39.481 AU.
>
>Perhaps I'm keeping my cart too far ahead of the horse again. I believe
>somewhere it's posted that in roughly 280 some odd years the orbit of
>this 10th planet, or rather icy protomoon, is coming to within 36 AU,
>which is obviously still way out there.
I have checked out Xena's exact orbit...
Perihelion = 37.808 AU
Aphelion = 97.610 AU
Semi-Major Axis = 67.7091 AU
So you are 2 AU out, when it is closer to 38 AU. The Orbital Period is
557 years. So you are quite correct that it will be at it's closest
approach in about 280 years from now.
>BTW
>As long as we're taking a few lose cannon shots in the dark; Is there
>any chance that your "Mars sized planet" was actually a wee bit larger,
>say Venus sized or, perhaps even a bit smaller, such as an
>icy-protomoon sized item of possibly 4000 km?
Well I did not come up with that theory. The size of Mars was the
claim. And in any case it does not matter much.
>You bet it does. In fact, I've often utilized roughly the 105,000 year
>cycle of our solar system cruising sufficiently nearby the Sirius star
>system (say well within 0.086 light year), thus obviously getting
>ourselves into a wee bit of an ify Oort to Oort situation, whereas our
>merging Oort clouds of mostly icy items and perhaps few not so icy
>items have got to be worth creating a testy time when all sorts of
>nasty things might be transpiring. Somewhat of a geological RESET of
>what we've called home sweet home if enough of those icy items toutch
>down or even manage to bounce a few megatonnes of mostly basalt away
>from our once upon a time icy moon. Does any of this "mean anything to
>you"?
Certainly. I was quite impressed when I first heard the idea. However,
this won't happen if your lifetime. So there is no need to concern
yourself about a star passing through our Oort Cloud.
>I believe that I merely suggested that if we can't hardly manage to
>identify the Sedna size of what's reasonably impressive, then how are
>we going to identify those potentially nastier items of being
>potentially slower at times and often of much darker/stealth albedo
>items of otherwise good density and, as having the potential of
>becoming a worthy NEO,
You could certainly spot them. When one of these objects comes close
to our local star it will turn into a nice comet. Then you cannot miss
it.
>if not offering a bit touchy-feely since gravity
>seems to have that affect upon such things as they move through space.
>It seems the slower the velocity the more gravity has an opportunity as
>to influence upon forming potential mergers. Of course, of whatever
>bounces off something worthy is going to change the rules of survival,
>whereas becoming really smart is about our only option unless we can
>remain nice enough to whomever is camping out on Venus, as to their
>coming to our rescue, or on behalf of offering a viable home away from
>home until KBO hell gets through with pulverising mother Earth (again).
And yet each morning you wake up alive and well. Just like the rest of
civilization has been doing for many thousands of years.
Cardman.
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
>
>> Out there will be objects as large as Mercury, Mars and even Earth. I
>> would even be willing to predict that there could well be a couple of
>> gas giants as well.
>
>What's really neat (to me) about this is that a Mars or Earth
>sized KBO may be able to retain a helium atmosphere.
That sounds quite possible. It just seems a question of suitable mass,
when there should be plenty of Helium to scoop up.
We will have to see what is in our more local Kuiper Belt, when our
Oort Cloud is a very much larger place to find large planets.
Sedna is really an Oort Cloud object. As if you think that Pluto is a
long way out, at about 32 AU, then Sedna goes all the way out to 928
AU. Fortunately it was detected as it was starting to go back out at
somewhat over 76 AU.
So the longer it takes for someone to send a probe to Sedna the
further away it will be.
It is interesting to note that the Voyager 1 space probe is currently
out at about 96 AU. There it has just about encountered the
Termination Shock. That is the start to the end of our Sun's direct
influence over our local solar system. So all the KBOs, up to at least
this point, do indeed get sunshine. :-]
>These
>bodies could be the best places in the solar system to mine
>helium-3, better even than Uranus (since getting back off them
>to orbit will be much easier).
Yes, quite possible. Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
that much of a problem. You just come in fast and low, scope up the
atmosphere, and then let the laws of physics take you back out.
>They'll be way the hell out there,
Well the two Voyager probes have made it well into the Kuiper Belt.
I just wonder if any of these KBOs are yet in the right direction for
New Horizons to pay a visit? As when this New Horizons probe has swung
past Pluto, then it hopes to visit a second KBO.
Alas Sedna is in totally the wrong direction. I have yet to hear word
on if anything else is suitable. That I guess is unlikely. There is a
lot of space out there, where New Horizons only has a small area that
it can cover.
I hope that they are at least looking extra hard in the area that New
Horizons can cover. As it would be a shame to send this probe out that
far without having it's second destination set.
>but we'd presumably have fusion rockets (for which
>D-3He is probably the ideal fuel.)
It is no good mining He3 until you have a real life working
application. Beyond making a He3 bomb that is. Oddly enough that seems
like the one reason that Warmonger Bush would approve of it.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
boring.
BTW; if our Oort cloud is supposedly worth 100,000 AU, I'd have to
suggest that the square of being roughly 3.5 times as collectively
massive could suggest that the Sirius Oort cloud might represent as
great as 1,225,000 AU, perhaps loaded with really large icy orbs the
size of significant planets or that of extremely large protomoons.
If there were still a Sirius-c (planet) as such, what might it's size,
mass and somewhat testy relationship be?
If that's a bit too far outside your cozy mainstream box, how about
helping me out with some of the hot and nasty though surmountable
aspects of Venus?
Brad Guth
Please note that Sander Vesik is strictly a mainstream status quo or
bust sort of guy. As such, you may get very odd answers to what you are
saying.
~
Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
Alain Fournier
Cardman wrote:
> Yes, quite possible. Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
> that much of a problem. You just come in fast and low, scope up the
> atmosphere, and then let the laws of physics take you back out.
One of those laws of physics deals with energy. Uranus escape
velocity is 21.29 km/s and rotational speed is 2.59 km/s so
you *only* have to give 18.7 km/s to your mined goods. That is
175 MJ/kg. At today's energy cost (here on Earth, not in Uranus
vicinity) that is about $2/kg if you assume 100% efficiency
in your "come in fast and low, scoop up the atmosphere" scheme.
Assuming 100% efficiency and earthly energy prices seems a
little optimistic to me. This is not a show stopper, but if you
can mine your goods somewhere else without those cost you are
better off.
Alain Fournier
Pat Flannery
Cardman wrote:
> Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
>that much of a problem.
>
>
I don't know; it sounds painful to me. :-)
Apparently, the reason that the new KBO got announced in such an odd
manner is that a hacker got into the discovery team's computer files,
and they thought he had probably found out about it- so they hastily
called a press conference:
http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2733660&fSectionId=1041
Pat
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
>
>> Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
>>that much of a problem.
>
>I don't know; it sounds painful to me. :-)
Ah, that old joke. Well astronomers can always try changing the name
again. I would recommend Urectum. ;-]
>Apparently, the reason that the new KBO got announced in such an odd
>manner is that a hacker got into the discovery team's computer files,
>and they thought he had probably found out about it- so they hastily
>called a press conference:
>http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2733660&fSectionId=1041
That is not quite correct. Let me explain.
The thing was that the telescope that this team used generates an
observing log. This includes the astronomers assigned code number for
the object that they have been viewing. In this case that is K40506A.
And the problem here is that Mike Brown's team, in previous months,
held a talk about their current work. During this talk they mentioned
the K40506A code.
The thing is that Brown was planning to also announce 2003 EL61, but a
Spanish team beat them to it. There was posed the question over if
this duplicated find was stolen from them, but this is a claim that
Brown strongly denies.
However, Brown did some research, over if it was indeed possible for
someone to obtain his data. So he simply entered his own observing
code in Google and did a search.
Sure enough this telescope's public on-line observing log was directly
returned. Brown now in shock saw that anyone who now knew where this
log was could also track, and possibly claim, his other finds for
themselves.
So Mike Brown got back to the IAU's MPC to ask them if someone has
really been making use of this data. And sure enough the MPC confirmed
that some other astronomer had indeed been pointing their own
telescope at these same objects, where they also logged down the exact
same observing codes that Mike Brown's team used.
And so they were not really "hacked", when this data was available to
anyone who used Google to search for it. Brown was just being stupid
to give out his observing codes, and then naive over these logs not
being on the Net for all to see.
Since Brown was now fearful that his more important finds could be
claimed by some other astronomer, then that is why he quickly called a
press conference to announce these finds.
It is not that it is the case that some other astronomer would really
steal his work, but he was playing better safe than sorry.
Cardman.
Paul F. Dietz
> Yes, quite possible. Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
> that much of a problem. You just come in fast and low, scope up the
> atmosphere, and then let the laws of physics take you back out.
The problem with this is that you're not lifting He3, you're lifting
raw atmospheric gas, of which helium 3 is, what, 15- ppm?
The propulsion systems of your scoopers begin to approach
the energy output of the civilization you're trying to fuel.
Paul
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
>
>> Yes, quite possible. Still, I do not see that "mining Uranus" will be
>> that much of a problem. You just come in fast and low, scope up the
>> atmosphere, and then let the laws of physics take you back out.
>
>The problem with this is that you're not lifting He3, you're lifting
>raw atmospheric gas, of which helium 3 is, what, 15- ppm?
Well my statement was more along the line of solving the initial
problem of mining Uranus and making it back out of this large gravity
trap. You would end up with some He3 after all. <grin>
Now, you can certainly tell me if I am wrong, but going to Uranus and
doing a serious mining job currently seems somewhat beyond our current
ability. Had we actually been able to send people, or at least a
robot, out to Uranus of course.
When you mine the atmosphere you are subject to drag. And I am sure
that it is true to say that He3 extraction is not exactly a small and
easy operation.
And so you would be hanging about in a decaying orbit, that you would
need to support through regular boosts, where at the end of all this
you still have to climb out of that large gravity well.
Sounds like a good fantasy story to me.
>The propulsion systems of your scoopers begin to approach
>the energy output of the civilization you're trying to fuel.
My idea was more along the idea of opening the hatch and let in the
Uranian air. Do it right and you could even put your stored atmosphere
under a large pressure.
There, some He3 at least. And you could even do that with today's
technology. Not that this project should ever be funded mind you.
However, it is quite correct that finding a TNO, of the KBO kind, with
an atmosphere containing a noticeable volume of Helium, is certainly a
much better place to mine your He3.
Just have a robotic mining rig land on your chosen KBO, where this
automated system can go on and on until it is full of He3. Blast off.
Return to Earth. And then you have your substance that no one can yet
do anything useful with.
You could make a few $$$ on eBay I guess.
Cardman.
Paul F. Dietz
> When you mine the atmosphere you are subject to drag. And I am sure
> that it is true to say that He3 extraction is not exactly a small and
> easy operation.
>
> And so you would be hanging about in a decaying orbit, that you would
> need to support through regular boosts, where at the end of all this
> you still have to climb out of that large gravity well.
You certainly would have to get back to space, but you wouldn't
be mining from orbit. You'd use a bouyant vessel down around
the 10 bar level, probably a nuclear hot air balloon.
The point is you'd be boosting four or five orders of magnitude
less mass up to orbital speed vs. your scheme.
Paul
Hop David
A Hohmann to an earth sized KBO at 100 AU would take about 180 years.
You could take a faster hyperbolic path between the big KBO and earth
but I suspect the delta vee penalty would be comparable to Uranus'
gravity well.
More exciting to me would be local use. Fusion power would make
settlement of the KBOs much more doable. The KBO colonies would be a
better market for KBO Helium-3
--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Alain Fournier
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
I thought it was supposed to be a combination of the two. You
have a hot air (well Uranian atmosphere, can we really call that
air) balloon mining 3He and preparing packets for the scoop.
The scoop only pickups 3He. The scoop only serves as a way
to avoid having an 18.7 km/s delta vee rocket carrying the mined
3He from Uranus. A few *technical details* need to be worked
out before doing this :-)
Alain Fournier
Paul F. Dietz
> A Hohmann to an earth sized KBO at 100 AU would take about 180 years.
So you don't do that. Acceleration at .001 to .01 gee would be
acceptable.
> You could take a faster hyperbolic path between the big KBO and earth
> but I suspect the delta vee penalty would be comparable to Uranus'
> gravity well.
The delta-V would be even larger. However, the acceleration required
would be much lower. It's very much easier to achieve high Isp at
low acceleration.
Paul
Cardman
<hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>A Hohmann to an earth sized KBO at 100 AU would take about 180 years.
What do you mean?
Voyager 1 is currently out at about 96 AU, where it got there in about
28 years. Sure there is not that same planetary alignment these days,
but I still hear about designs claiming to get out there even faster.
The return trip is bound to be more interesting, when you cannot take
advantage of gravity assists. Or at least not until what exactly is in
the Kuiper Belt is better understood.
Astronomers can currently see out to about 100 AU it seems, even if
seeing even further out appears possible. This should well enough
cover the Kuiper Belt in the patch of sky that they can see. The Oort
Cloud is bound to be even more interesting, when they improve their
telescopes to see out that far.
>You could take a faster hyperbolic path between the big KBO and earth
>but I suspect the delta vee penalty would be comparable to Uranus'
>gravity well.
Sounds like an ideal job for some solar sail travel. Should this
technology actually be proven to work.
>More exciting to me would be local use. Fusion power would make
>settlement of the KBOs much more doable. The KBO colonies would be a
>better market for KBO Helium-3
Yes, in about 100 years time, when this He3 fusion power technology
may actually exist.
You just got to love these He3 plans. Just about all aspects do not
yet exist, including the end application. Time to put that idea on the
shelf.
More likely, is that by the time it becomes doable, you would also
have the technology to do efficient local extraction / collection
anyway.
Cardman.
George William Herbert
>However, Brown did some research, over if it was indeed possible for
>someone to obtain his data. So he simply entered his own observing
>code in Google and did a search.
According to an email list posting from one of the principals,
(paraphrasing like mad), what happened was that the head of
the Minor Planets Center was called by Brown shortly after
the 2003 EL61 announcement, and Brown said "By the way, we
have another...", and the head of the MPC then said "Yes, I
know, here's the orbit... and how I figured it out."
Which was, googling the object's known code name which
appeared in preprints.
There was no confirmed hacking. Brown didn't realize the risk of
that until it was shown to him by the MPC head, but then decided
to check, and then shortly thereafter announced the two other
objects.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Henry Spencer
>> atmosphere, and then let the laws of physics take you back out.
>
>The problem with this is that you're not lifting He3, you're lifting
>raw atmospheric gas, of which helium 3 is, what, 15- ppm?
>The propulsion systems of your scoopers begin to approach
>the energy output of the civilization you're trying to fuel.
Even He-3 mining on the Moon potentially has serious problems with needing
almost as much energy as the He-3 can then generate. You really want some
cheap way of concentrating the stuff a whole lot before you have to invest
significant energy in it.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. | he...@spsystems.net
Cardman
Herbert) wrote:
>According to an email list posting from one of the principals,
>(paraphrasing like mad), what happened was that the head of
>the Minor Planets Center was called by Brown shortly after
>the 2003 EL61 announcement, and Brown said "By the way, we
>have another...", and the head of the MPC then said "Yes, I
>know, here's the orbit... and how I figured it out."
>Which was, googling the object's known code name which
>appeared in preprints.
>
>There was no confirmed hacking. Brown didn't realize the risk of
>that until it was shown to him by the MPC head, but then decided
>to check, and then shortly thereafter announced the two other
>objects.
Yes, that is nearly right. The only problem is that Brian Marsden of
the MPC did not tell him own KBO's orbits, but simply went away to see
if any other person has been using his data.
You can read Mike Brown's personal account here on his web page...
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html
That should remove any of us third party trying to incorrectly piece
it together. :-]
What I also find interesting is the method that he uses to find these
TNOs. As he just has a telescope that takes 3 automatic photos of each
patch of sky over about 2 hours each.
This data is then passed automatically to a computer to process, where
the computer looks for objects that move. In most cases this is simply
a glitch of the camera, but in like this case a real KBO is found.
He mentioned that it takes about 5 years to cover every part of the
sky that he can see from his location. So following this automatic
recording and sorting process, they then have to sort out the good and
bad finds.
Ah, the easy life of the armchair astronomer. ;-]
What is also interesting in this case is that this object was first
recorded back in 2003. During this time the computer missed spotting
this object, because it was so far out at 97AU and moved so slowly.
Only when the computer software was improved to look for slower moving
objects, and this old data was reprocessed, was this KBO larger than
Pluto discovered back in January this year.
Cardman.
Neil Gerace
news:54e0f1tk7h5jsa1sp...@4ax.com...
> You can read Mike Brown's personal account here on his web page...
> http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html
"It's true that the information was available without breaking into any
sites. It's also true that sometimes I don't lock the door to my house. I
hope that people don't think it's therefore OK to come in and take my
stuff."
I don't think this is a good analogy. Publishing stuff on an open website is
like saying "here is my data, come and look at it". A house makes the stuff
inside private at all times.
Cardman
True enough.
What Mike Brown was doing was to make public some information, in
order to "wet the appetite of other scientists", but to withhold the
details of their location.
He simply overlooked that the public information that he gave out
could directly lead to people finding out the location information
that he wanted to withhold.
So he certainly cannot blame people now wanting to look more closely
at the KBOs that he has been advertising. I am sure that some of them
were aware of what these codes were that he was giving out, where they
could easily use these codes to look up the KBO's location in the
telescope logs.
However, anyone wishing to claim these finds as their own, by making
use of his initial data, is clearly wrong. Some other astronomer did
certainly take a look at his KBO's, but what happened following is
somewhat unclear.
Cardman.
Autymn D. C.
> And I can also assure you that it will be easy enough to tell what
> belong to our solar system and what does not. As if it is a part of
> our system, then so will it move in the same general direction as our
> sun.
"You do not move in the same direction as our Sun! You must leave!"
Autymn D. C.
> Sedna sure is not icy. Ice does not come in red. :-]
An allotrope of solid O does.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
Autymn D. C.
wandering
Autymn D. C.
compliment
Jer
Scott Hedrick
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:12:57 -0700, Hop David
> <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>>A Hohmann to an earth sized KBO at 100 AU would take about 180 years.
>
> What do you mean?
>
> Voyager 1 is currently out at about 96 AU, where it got there in about
> 28 years.
Voyager 1 is not in a Hohmann orbit.
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
>> Sedna sure is not icy. Ice does not come in red. :-]
>
>An allotrope of solid O does.
There always has to be one... :-]
Well, they have had a good look at Sedna, where there is no noticeable
volume of ice to be seen.
The top theory on why Sedna, is almost as red as Mars, is that it is
covered in a hydrocarbon sludge, or tholin. This is best reflected in
the centaur nicknamed "big red" or 5145 Pholus.
The theory on why Sedna is more red than Pholus is because, being
further out, it is subject to less impacts that would have exposed a
more whiter layer underneath.
It just seems to me that Sedna used to be in an orbit that is a touch
more warmer than it currently is in. Considering the reported "missing
moon" problem, where one theory is that it's moon could have been
destroyed, then it could well be that Sedna has quite an interesting
story to tell.
Cardman.
Hop David
Cardman wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:12:57 -0700, Hop David
> <hopspageHA...@tabletoptelephone.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A Hohmann to an earth sized KBO at 100 AU would take about 180 years.
>
>
> What do you mean?
>
> Voyager 1 is currently out at about 96 AU, where it got there in about
> 28 years. Sure there is not that same planetary alignment these days,
> but I still hear about designs claiming to get out there even faster.
I believe Voyager exceeds solar escape velocity and is therefore a
hyperbolic path instead of an elliptical Hohmann path.
A Hohmann transfer orbit is an elliptical orbit tangent to both the
departure and destination orbits.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/satellites/hohmann.html
Since it's tangent, the velocity vector is parallel to the circular
orbit's velocity vector at departure or arrival. The only delta vee
needed is to slow down to or catch up to the circular orbits. No delta
vee is needed for direction change.
Your observation has made me rethink the desirability of a Hohmann
orbit, though.
A circular orbit at 100 AU is moving only 3 km/sec. I'll look at two
orbits arriving at the destination at 1 km/sec. The first Hohmann
arrives traveling the same direction as the earth sized KBO. The second
I'll call Shortcut arrives going nearly straight up from the sun at 90
degrees to the planet's orbit.
A Hohmann orbit would need about 2 km/sec delta vee to match velocities
at a 100 AU orbit. If the object is earth mass, substantial Obert
savings can be realized. If you want to capture the transfer ship to an
elliptical orbit with 300 km altitude periapsis and 380,000 apoapsis,
all you'd need is .3 km/sec.
Contrast this to the shortcut path that crosses the circular orbit at
right angles. The 1 km/sec vector and 3 km/sec vectors form a right
triangle whose delta vee hypotenuse vector is sqrt(10) km/sec or about
3.16 km/sec. Exploiting the Oberth effect to capture to the same planet
orbit mentioned above you only need .4 km/sec delta vee.
A difference of .1 km/sec isn't a huge concern. And both these orbits
would have a 1 AU perihelion velocity of about 12 km/sec.
Solar escape velocity is about 4.2 km/sec at 100 AU. A transfer orbit
going 5 km/sec at arrival would be hyperbolic wrt the sun. If it were
crossing the planet's orbit at right angles the velocity wrt the planet
would be sqrt(5^2 + 3^2) km/sec or about 5.8 km/sec.
Capturing to the 300 km periapsis, 380000 apoapsis planet orbit would
take only 1.2 km/sec.
Let's see, with a Vinf of .8 km/sec, the hyperbola's velocity when it
reaches a 1 AU perihelion will be 42.13 km/sec or about 12.34 km/sec wrt
earth. About the same as the Hohmann. Even this hyperbolic orbit doesn't
exceed the Hohmann's delta vee by more than 2 km/sec.
In this case deviating from Hohmann doesn't seem to have a high delta
vee penalty.
>
> The return trip is bound to be more interesting, when you cannot take
> advantage of gravity assists. Or at least not until what exactly is in
> the Kuiper Belt is better understood.
It seems to me relying on gravity assists tends to make your launch
windows much more infrequent.
Autymn D. C.
Cardman
wrote:
>Stop misspelling its!
Is there nothing better that you can do than to correct the spelling
faults from multiple posters?
In fact, considering the international aspect of the Usenet, where
many people do not have English as their first language, then it is in
fact quite bizarre to assume that everyone has perfect written English
language skills.
Should you have ever made a spelling mistake, which is something that
seem impossible to avoid, then you have no right to point out other
peoples language failings, when doing so would be very hypocritical of
you.
I would even start to suspect that you may have a superiority complex,
but that remains to be seen.
Since language is not a constant, where neither do you own it, then it
is really my choice on how I wish to use it. The written language is
about passing on understanding through text, where my postings
certainly achieve that goal.
I have no idea just what your irritation is with such minor faults in
all these postings, but I can assure you that pointing out these
things is very much against general Usenet netiquette. So in your
attempt to enforce one social value you break another.
So I hope that I have now pointed out at least one or more reasons
that will make your stop these pointless postings. Replaying to
postings based on their content is acceptable. Replying to postings
based their construct is not.
Cardman.
Hop David
Perhaps they could mine He-3 from helium ore on the transfer ship and
use the "slag" helium as reaction mass in ion engines. Even higher Isp
can be achieved with helium. Helium ion engines have very low thrust but
I wonder if that's a showstopper in you're budgeting a decade in which
to do your burn.
More conventional high thrust engines would be desirable to exploit the
Oberth effect when deep in gravity wells. Maybe a transfer ship would
have two rocket engines.
Brad Guth
> Sedna sure is not icy. Ice does not come in red. :-]
Under an solar iron and titanium deposited cloak it may just be an icy
protomoon of at least a good layer of CO2/ice, and perhaps a core of
H2O/ice as sequestered within a pumice like matrix of whatever rock or
chunk of a spent star. Either way it's density isn't hardly suggestive
of all that much other than icy something or another.
> There we go again. Thinking that just because these items are out in
> the cold dark regions that they are less worthy. And thus by bringing
> them into the "light" they then become holy and worthy of our respect.
Actually I've been considering Venus as Sirius-c, -d, -e or Sirius
whatever, and that of our moon once belonging to the likes of Sirius-c.
According to stellar motions; how often has our solar system cruised
nearby the Sirius star system?
~
Don't look now: in spite of an orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus a few other somewhat testy
topics by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman;
>> Sedna sure is not icy. Ice does not come in red. :-]
>
>Under an solar iron and titanium deposited cloak it may just be an icy
>protomoon of at least a good layer of CO2/ice, and perhaps a core of
>H2O/ice as sequestered within a pumice like matrix of whatever rock or
>chunk of a spent star. Either way it's density isn't hardly suggestive
>of all that much other than icy something or another.
Well I guess that I should have clarified that I was talking just
about the surface. I have mentioned before that this red would be
reduced had it been subject to a higher volume of impacts.
Sedna is highly likely to be ice lower down, but the Universe is well
known to come up with the odd surprise.
>> There we go again. Thinking that just because these items are out in
>> the cold dark regions that they are less worthy. And thus by bringing
>> them into the "light" they then become holy and worthy of our respect.
>
>Actually I've been considering Venus as Sirius-c, -d, -e or Sirius
>whatever, and that of our moon once belonging to the likes of Sirius-c.
Your point seems to escape me.
>According to stellar motions; how often has our solar system cruised
>nearby the Sirius star system?
That answer I cannot locate. Still, seeing that this binary star
system is only 8.57 light years away, then adding in the fact that
Sirius-A is 2.14 times the mass of the Sun, then so can you see why
our Sun would like to head in that direction,
It is worth noting that Gliese 710 will pass about 70,000 AU from our
Sun in about 1.4 million years from now. There goes our theoretical
Oort Cloud again.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
>> Actually I've been considering Venus as Sirius-c, -d, -e or Sirius
>> whatever, and that of our moon once belonging to the likes of Sirius-c.
> Your point seems to escape me.
erosions, plus considering upon those well recorded cycles of diatom
deposits and, the CO2 that's another hard-science matter of recorded
fact as extracted from multiple ice cores going back some odd 750,000
years thus far. Do you have any other 105,000 some odd year worth of a
nearby stellar cycle of whatever to suggest?
>> According to stellar motions; how often has our solar system cruised
>> nearby the Sirius star system?
> That answer I cannot locate. Still, seeing that this binary star
> system is only 8.57 light years away, then adding in the fact that
> Sirius-A is 2.14 times the mass of the Sun, then so can you see why
> our Sun would like to head in that direction,
Actually, I believe the combined mass of the Sirius star system (other
star[s], planets, Kuiper/Oort stuff) up against ours is more like
3.5:1, possibly as great as 4:1 if that Sirius Kuiper/Oort population
of somewhat more massive items is multiplied by the square of the
available core and Kuiper belt mass.
> It is worth noting that Gliese 710 will pass about 70,000 AU from our
> Sun in about 1.4 million years from now. There goes our theoretical
> Oort Cloud again.
That's both good and a bad thing to know about, that eventually the
likes of "Gliese 710" may interact within sufficient range of 70,000
AU, which should accomplish some real collateral damage.
At a time of such a stellar merging, is the Gliese 710 Oort cloud
rotating with or against ours?
Same question goes for that of the Sirius Oort cloud; is it going with
or against ours?
I believe it'll make a measured difference if the Oort to Oort impacts
are those of a few hundred m/s to perhaps a km/s, as opposed to the sum
of their colliding velocities becoming those of many extra km/s. A
couple of icy Sedna or somewhat larger orbs running head to head into
one another could prove rather nasty if any of that's redirected and/or
attracted towards our mother Earth, or even that of impacting our moon
isn't exactly without some risk of subsequently taking out a few of us
in the process.
~
Don't look now: in spite of your orchestrated status quo, it seems
Brad Guth
time. Too bad that your mindset is so nicely stuck deep into that
mainstream space-toilet.
I don't suppose that you'd actually like to contribute whatever's on
topic?
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman;
>>> Actually I've been considering Venus as Sirius-c, -d, -e or Sirius
>>> whatever, and that of our moon once belonging to the likes of Sirius-c.
>> Your point seems to escape me.
>
>What can I say, other than ICE-AGES and of the subsequent cycle of land
>erosions, plus considering upon those well recorded cycles of diatom
>deposits and, the CO2 that's another hard-science matter of recorded
>fact as extracted from multiple ice cores going back some odd 750,000
>years thus far. Do you have any other 105,000 some odd year worth of a
>nearby stellar cycle of whatever to suggest?
I see. This killing Oort Cloud thing again.
>>> According to stellar motions; how often has our solar system cruised
>>> nearby the Sirius star system?
>
>> That answer I cannot locate. Still, seeing that this binary star
>> system is only 8.57 light years away, then adding in the fact that
>> Sirius-A is 2.14 times the mass of the Sun, then so can you see why
>> our Sun would like to head in that direction,
>
>Actually, I believe the combined mass of the Sirius star system (other
>star[s], planets, Kuiper/Oort stuff) up against ours is more like
>3.5:1, possibly as great as 4:1 if that Sirius Kuiper/Oort population
>of somewhat more massive items is multiplied by the square of the
>available core and Kuiper belt mass.
Yes, so a nice big mass to cause disruption in out galactic
neighbourhood. The other stars around here are smaller than the Sun.
>> It is worth noting that Gliese 710 will pass about 70,000 AU from our
>> Sun in about 1.4 million years from now. There goes our theoretical
>> Oort Cloud again.
>
>That's both good and a bad thing to know about, that eventually the
>likes of "Gliese 710" may interact within sufficient range of 70,000
>AU, which should accomplish some real collateral damage.
Not really. They ran this simulation through a super computer and
estimated that Earth had a low 5% chance of being hit by something.
More interesting to know is that the Algol star system passed within
about 625,000 AU of us about 7.3 million years ago. Although Gliese
710 will pass a lot closer in the future, but Algol would have caused
much more disruption because this system weighs in at 5.8 solar
masses.
As you an see we still live on. Not that we were exactly around 7.3
million years ago that is.
>At a time of such a stellar merging, is the Gliese 710 Oort cloud
>rotating with or against ours?
No idea. I doubt this would make much of a difference in any case when
two Oort Clouds collide.
>Same question goes for that of the Sirius Oort cloud; is it going with
>or against ours?
I believe that I should mention that the Oort Cloud is currently a
theory. The Kuiper Belt is real, but this Oort Cloud has yet to be
proved.
Sedna makes for an interesting case. Although this object goes all the
way out to 928 AU, but the Oort Cloud theory says that the Oort Cloud
should range between about 50,000 and 100,000 AU.
So Sedna is in a location not counted for in current theory. Some
people say that the Kuiper Belt is larger than first assumed, while
others say that the Oort Cloud has an inner region as well.
Maybe they should just face the fact that it is the same sort of thing
all the way out.
>I believe it'll make a measured difference if the Oort to Oort impacts
>are those of a few hundred m/s to perhaps a km/s, as opposed to the sum
>of their colliding velocities becoming those of many extra km/s.
They have already run those numbers, where your great great grand
children have a 5% chance of being killed.
>A
>couple of icy Sedna or somewhat larger orbs running head to head into
>one another could prove rather nasty if any of that's redirected and/or
>attracted towards our mother Earth, or even that of impacting our moon
>isn't exactly without some risk of subsequently taking out a few of us
>in the process.
Since in 1.4 million years time, you won't be around, then there is
little point spending your life worrying about it.
Cardman,
Joann Evans
> The other good news is that, with one solar system's planetoids reaching
> halfway to the next star, one can easily imagine that as the solar
> system is settled, with colonies moving further and further out into the
> Oort cloud, it will one day be a very simple hop to the next Oort cloud
> over. In this way, we will become a multi-star-system civilization,
> without ever having to invent FTL travel or invest in some big
> multigenerational expedition.
Isn't this still just an even slower form of generation travel?
At least such a slowboat is still trying to get from star A to star
B, without setteling everything (and there isn't going to be all that
much) in between...
--
You know what to remove, to reply....
Joann Evans
>
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 17:01:03 -0600, Joe Strout <j...@strout.net> wrote:
>
> >The other good news is that, with one solar system's planetoids reaching
> >halfway to the next star, one can easily imagine that as the solar
> >system is settled, with colonies moving further and further out into the
> >Oort cloud, it will one day be a very simple hop to the next Oort cloud
> >over. In this way, we will become a multi-star-system civilization,
> >without ever having to invent FTL travel or invest in some big
> >multigenerational expedition.
>
> heading in the right direction. A nice idea that.
>
> Cardman.
It would still be like trying to cross the ocean using continental
drift...
OM
<bon...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Cardman wrote:
<snip>
...Kids, will you all *PLEASE* take some advice? Brad Guth is a known
nutball troll on sci.space.history. Most of us - those with any sense
whatsoever - have put the ignorant, inbred bastard in our killfiles
long ago. In fact, the only time we see anything the dogsucker posts
is when one of *you* kids reply to his latest blatherings.
...So *please*, either put him in your killfile, or trim your headers
so his crap will stay in -your- groups and off of .history. Enough's
enough.
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
Scott Hedrick
> I see. This killing Oort Cloud thing again.
What we need to do is send some advisors out there to teach the Cloud to aim
better. It keeps missing Brad.
Autymn D. C.
> It's a good thing that the likes of Einstein wandered from time to
> time. Too bad that your mindset is so nicely stuck deep into that
> mainstream space-toilet.
>
> I don't suppose that you'd actually like to contribute whatever's on
> topic?
Yes, Uncle Al told me to design a better orbital launcher than
"reaction rockets" (I take that to mean the Shuttle.) after I told him
off that teleportation was well-plausible.
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> Is there nothing better that you can do than to correct the spelling
> faults from multiple posters?
sometimes
> In fact, considering the international aspect of the Usenet, where
> many people do not have English as their first language, then it is in
> fact quite bizarre to assume that everyone has perfect written English
> language skills.
I don't.
> Should you have ever made a spelling mistake, which is something that
> seem impossible to avoid, then you have no right to point out other
> peoples language failings, when doing so would be very hypocritical of
> you.
I correct myself, so take back your red herring.
> I would even start to suspect that you may have a superiority complex,
> but that remains to be seen.
I do; I yell back at Uncle Al.
> Since language is not a constant, where neither do you own it, then it
> is really my choice on how I wish to use it. The written language is
> about passing on understanding through text, where my postings
> certainly achieve that goal.
If one's choice is wrong, then I will correct it. The commonest
mistakes blur understanding from the endless precision I want and like.
> I have no idea just what your irritation is with such minor faults in
> all these postings, but I can assure you that pointing out these
> things is very much against general Usenet netiquette. So in your
> attempt to enforce one social value you break another.
Prove it, but I don't care about etiquette or manners when they
disregard the truth.
> So I hope that I have now pointed out at least one or more reasons
> that will make your stop these pointless postings. Replaying to
> postings based on their content is acceptable. Replying to postings
> based their construct is not.
They're not pointless.
-Aut
Brad Guth
I'm not actually so much of a doom and gloom sort of guy, whereas I'm
just trying to get an outsider grasp upon what cruising sufficiently
close by the likes of the Sirius star system might have involved.
Obviously the odds of our getting Kuiper/Oort contributions that'll
touch our frail environment seems a bit likely, although because of our
atmosphere being somewhat of an influx buffer/moderation zone that's
affording a great deal of effective shielding from such nasty items,
that is as long as the majority of such items are of somewhat
icy/pumice substances.
It's certainly not that you or myself are going to be anywhere nearby
the next time that happens, although the dirt we've become may just get
summarily pulverised to a fairlywell, especially well pulverised if
these Oort to Oort encounters are in opposing/retrograde to one another
because, there's little doubt that the KE=0.5MV2 factor isn't going to
be avoided. Since outer Kuiper and especially Oort stuff isn't moving
terribly fast with respect to our frame of coexistence, it's therefor
the matter of gravity attracting upon one another that's going to get
interesting and perhaps very happenstance worthy of nailing our sorry
butts.
OK by me if potentially retrograde mergings of Oort clouds are either
quite sparse, mother nature's WMD stealth of even nonexistent, although
the teams of wizards that have been suggesting otherwise are gaining a
few points by their identifying a few of the larger items, of those
somewhat following the laws of physics and orbital mechanics at that.
Why is this Oort stuff and/or interstellar motions so testy for someone
as yourself that otherwise believes in phony baloney NASA/Apollo
crapolla of such soft-science and conditional-physics that sucks. It
seems that's about as SF as the pure fiction of your conditional laws
of physics gets, and yet there's still no lunar hard-science as
obtained from the surface, nor whatsoever sign of them Apollo cows. Why
is Venus so stealth/invisible to your mindset, as it was impossible for
those NASA/Apollo naked moonsuit adventures to have noticed, much less
easily recorded as another of their unfiltered Kodak moments?
If on behalf of your Gliese 710, whereas "They ran this simulation
through a super computer and estimated that Earth had a low 5% chance
of being hit by something" is worth doing, then why not superimpose the
sorts of stellar motions that'll get us to within at least 0.086 light
years of Sirius, then for the sporting sort of guy you are, lets take a
super computer look-see at what a somewhat tighter elliptical orbital
path might suggest, in that we try out a near pass of 0.0086 light
years distance in order to see exactly what those super computer CPUs
of yours have to say. BTW; whom is "They"?
I'll agree that your Algol at 5.8 solar masses passing to within
625,000 AU (nearly 9.9 light years) was worth noting, whereas
considering the extremely nearby mass as being worthy by merely 3.5:1
(possibly as great as 4:1) of the entire Sirius star system could also
have been most interesting upon every 105,000 +/- 5,000 some odd years,
especially if such were arriving within 0.086 LY (5,438 AU) along with
the once red-giant worth of Sirius-b kicking some of it's own serious
gravity butt and obviously sharing a good amount of IR photon dosage to
boot. Of course, these days Sirius-b has become the little white-dwarf
of a star that's mostly UV and as such downright nasty to being
anywhere near that little sucker.
On the other hand, I'm actually thinking that you're just as likely
correct in that the likes of Sedna may not be a Kuiper or an even an
Oort thing, just somewhat of another common interstellar ping-pong
worth of an icy pumice orb that's influenced by the nearby stars into
the path that it's taking, in much the same manner as is Pluto's orbit
having been established somewhat skewed because of our nearby
association with the Sirius star system. That is unless you've got
another black hole or two that hasn't been disclosed because it's
simply too freaking close.
If your Algol star system of having passed us by at 9.9 LY distance
represented 5% odds of Earth getting nailed by something significant,
then perhaps certainly the elliptical path bringing our solar system to
within 0.086 LY influence of the Sirius star system should become worth
a considerably worse outcome, especially if some of our big stuff gets
aligned with the really bigger stuff of the Sirius star system. What's
the chance of melting down a few of your super computer CPUs on the
weird notion that we have this 105,000 some odd year association with
the Sirius star system, and lets see how many times and of exactly
where we've been and of what we're in for.
Seems only someone having an ulterior motive and/or something other to
hide is going to object to this honest usage of such super computers,
that are mostly if not entirely tax dollar bought and paid for and
currently funded as for their facilities and operation.
I'm not the least bit worried about the 1.4 million year cycle of
whatever your doom and gloom has to offer, as your form of humanity
will have long since pillaged, plundered and summarily destroyed itself
by 1.399 of those 1.4 million years. The honest question is; why are
you dog-wagging and otherwise infomercial snookering us into thinking
there's absolutely nothing worth researching and/or doing anything
about unless it suits MOS ulterior motives and hidden agendas that
pleases your borg collective mindset?
Brad Guth
> Prove it, but I don't care about etiquette or manners when they
> disregard the truth.
Lets talk about disregarding the truth, such as disregarding the
physics truths about our moon, the fly-by-rocket truths that haven't
been demonstrated as to safely function as of today and much less of 4
decades ago, then disregarding the Kodak photo-chemical physics truths
as to what such unfiltered Kodak moments should have recorded, and so
forth as to another hundred or so topics and/or items that simply do
not add up unless you're another incest cloned brown-nosed borg of the
mainstream status quo.
What part of my "etiquette", dyslexic syntax, grammar or whatever isn't
sufficient this time around?
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman; "I see. This killing Oort Cloud thing again."
>I'm not actually so much of a doom and gloom sort of guy, whereas I'm
>just trying to get an outsider grasp upon what cruising sufficiently
>close by the likes of the Sirius star system might have involved.
Well, since you seem so interested in this subject, then how about
changing things around. So just what would you like scientists to do
to tackle this killer Sedna-clone problem from the heavens?
Since it seems to me that we don't really yet have the technology to
do a much better job then what we are already doing, then maybe your
ideas like "a radar system on the moon" should be put aside until the
day when we actually have enough people, energy, and hardware, on the
moon to even consider it.
After all, given simply odds alone, then no killer Sednas will be
heading our way any time soon. So we therefore have plenty of time to
work on better projects in the future.
>Obviously the odds of our getting Kuiper/Oort contributions that'll
>touch our frail environment seems a bit likely, although because of our
>atmosphere being somewhat of an influx buffer/moderation zone that's
>affording a great deal of effective shielding from such nasty items,
>that is as long as the majority of such items are of somewhat
>icy/pumice substances.
Certainly, asteroid impacts are well documented. However, we are much
more likely to only be hit by things that are of minor concern. On
their risk scale no known object has been above level 1, where the
only object that did make level 1 was soon downgraded.
So there is simply no known level 10 sure impact heading our way.
>It's certainly not that you or myself are going to be anywhere nearby
>the next time that happens, although the dirt we've become may just get
>summarily pulverised to a fairlywell, especially well pulverised if
>these Oort to Oort encounters are in opposing/retrograde to one another
>because, there's little doubt that the KE=0.5MV2 factor isn't going to
>be avoided.
Well despite your paranoia it is worth other people remembering that
they are more likely to die in an asteroid impact than in a plane
crash. Simply because, despite asteroid impacts being so rare, then
when they do hit they kill so many people at once.
>Since outer Kuiper and especially Oort stuff isn't moving
>terribly fast with respect to our frame of coexistence, it's therefor
>the matter of gravity attracting upon one another that's going to get
>interesting and perhaps very happenstance worthy of nailing our sorry
>butts.
Yes, two Oort Clouds going head to head is a point of additional
concern.
>Why is this Oort stuff and/or interstellar motions so testy for someone
>as yourself that otherwise believes in phony baloney NASA/Apollo
>crapolla of such soft-science and conditional-physics that sucks. It
>seems that's about as SF as the pure fiction of your conditional laws
>of physics gets, and yet there's still no lunar hard-science as
>obtained from the surface, nor whatsoever sign of them Apollo cows. Why
>is Venus so stealth/invisible to your mindset, as it was impossible for
>those NASA/Apollo naked moonsuit adventures to have noticed, much less
>easily recorded as another of their unfiltered Kodak moments?
I am still waiting for you to answer my question concerning your
stated belief when NASA once again lands on the Moon and directly
shows off evidence of their previous landings.
You are simply a reflection of people in modern society questioning
how NASA can spend 30+ years going round and round in LEO, when they
once made it to the moon. Is it therefore not unfair to express their
unhappiness by questioning if NASA made it to the Moon at all.
So this theory will quickly fade, not when NASA points out that it is
false, but when they once again directly prove that it can be done.
>If on behalf of your Gliese 710, whereas "They ran this simulation
>through a super computer and estimated that Earth had a low 5% chance
>of being hit by something" is worth doing, then why not superimpose the
>sorts of stellar motions that'll get us to within at least 0.086 light
>years of Sirius, then for the sporting sort of guy you are, lets take a
>super computer look-see at what a somewhat tighter elliptical orbital
>path might suggest, in that we try out a near pass of 0.0086 light
>years distance in order to see exactly what those super computer CPUs
>of yours have to say.
From my research I see no evidence that the Sirius star system will
actually come close to us any time soon. So you should be more on
about Gliese 710, when this lower mass star will pass right through
the middle of our theoretical Oort Cloud.
>I'll agree that your Algol at 5.8 solar masses passing to within
>625,000 AU (nearly 9.9 light years) was worth noting, whereas
>considering the extremely nearby mass as being worthy by merely 3.5:1
>(possibly as great as 4:1) of the entire Sirius star system could also
>have been most interesting upon every 105,000 +/- 5,000 some odd years,
>especially if such were arriving within 0.086 LY (5,438 AU) along with
>the once red-giant worth of Sirius-b kicking some of it's own serious
>gravity butt and obviously sharing a good amount of IR photon dosage to
>boot. Of course, these days Sirius-b has become the little white-dwarf
>of a star that's mostly UV and as such downright nasty to being
>anywhere near that little sucker.
So maybe you can tell me just when Sirius is due to pay us a visit,
when in 100,000 years time is not it. The Sirius star system is 8.57
light years away, where it currently seems to be moving at a relative
speed of 7.6 km/s.
Since one light year is 9.46 в 10^12, then 8.57 light years means that
Sirius is about 81,072,200,000,000 km away. And at 7.6 km/s it would
take 339,190 years to get here.
That is overlooking changes in relative speed of course, which should
be unlikely to change much seeing that Sirius is the big boy in the
neighbourhood. However, it also appears to me that Sirius is currently
moving away from us instead of towards us.
>On the other hand, I'm actually thinking that you're just as likely
>correct in that the likes of Sedna may not be a Kuiper or an even an
>Oort thing, just somewhat of another common interstellar ping-pong
>worth of an icy pumice orb that's influenced by the nearby stars into
>the path that it's taking,
That is one current theory. They currently conclude that Sedna could
not have got where it currently is, without something else putting it
there.
>in much the same manner as is Pluto's orbit
>having been established somewhat skewed because of our nearby
>association with the Sirius star system.
LOL. More like Neptune. I am also sure that it is true to say that
Neptune does send your KBOs all over the place.
>That is unless you've got another black hole or two that hasn't been
>disclosed because it's simply too freaking close.
You do not have to worry about black holes. One fact is that black
holes tend to sink down to the center of their galaxy, where given
enough time they will merge with the central massive black hole.
Since our solar system is not anywhere close to the center of our
galaxy, where neither are we on the path to ever go there, then quite
simply we are not where all the black holes like to hang out.
A near by black hole should not concern you much anyway, when their
major output will be gravity. So they would move about like a star
within an actual star system.
>If your Algol star system of having passed us by at 9.9 LY distance
>represented 5% odds of Earth getting nailed by something significant,
The odds would likely have been a touch higher than 5%.
>then perhaps certainly the elliptical path bringing our solar system to
>within 0.086 LY influence of the Sirius star system should become worth
>a considerably worse outcome,
Not within 100,000 years it won't.
>especially if some of our big stuff gets
>aligned with the really bigger stuff of the Sirius star system. What's
>the chance of melting down a few of your super computer CPUs on the
>weird notion that we have this 105,000 some odd year association with
>the Sirius star system, and lets see how many times and of exactly
>where we've been and of what we're in for.
Theory says that there is a link between passing star systems and mass
extinctions on Earth, but this is based on all star systems and not
just Sirius.
>I'm not the least bit worried about the 1.4 million year cycle of
>whatever your doom and gloom has to offer, as your form of humanity
>will have long since pillaged, plundered and summarily destroyed itself
>by 1.399 of those 1.4 million years. The honest question is; why are
>you dog-wagging and otherwise infomercial snookering us into thinking
>there's absolutely nothing worth researching and/or doing anything
>about unless it suits MOS ulterior motives and hidden agendas that
>pleases your borg collective mindset?
We are tiny compared to star systems. Our best defense is to spread
everywhere, kind of like a virus.
Your Sedna-like impact in one location won't affect all the rest in
other words. So we don't need radars on the Moon, but an efficient
space program, and then people breeding like rabbits.
So simply by getting extra friendly with your partner, and supporting
space programmes, then you can rest assured that you are helping our
species survive a Sedna-like impact.
Cardman.
stork
Brad Guth
Thanks for all the terrific feedback that's as usual mainstream or
bust.
> Well, since you seem so interested in this subject, then how about
> changing things around. So just what would you like scientists to do
> to tackle this killer Sedna-clone problem from the heavens?
In theory at least, I'd take advantage of such icy orbs by way of
directing whatever else there is that's moving about into impacting the
likes of Sedna, so as to redirecting that icy/pumice orb of a sucker
into merging along with Venus, if need be impacting Venus should
accomplish a sufficient release of a great deal of whatever's icy about
Sedna into accomplishing the likes of 40 days and nights worth of
flooding that supposedly hot and nasty environment, providing just the
sort of enema that a geologically hotter than hellish sort of newish
planet needs in order to start cooling things down by a few hundred
degrees K.
> Since it seems to me that we don't really yet have the technology to
> do a much better job then what we are already doing, then maybe your
> ideas like "a radar system on the moon" should be put aside until the
> day when we actually have enough people, energy, and hardware, on the
> moon to even consider it.
There's no good reason for placing a "radar system on the moon"
because, we already have sufficient terrestrial radar transmitting
capability as is. What we don't have are those image receiving
apertures deployed at the good VLA average distance of 384,400 km, that
which would give our astronomers a real madnification look-see factor
that'll knock our socks off. Such radar image receiving apertures are
relatively small, reasonably robust, quite energy efficient and once
having been constructed for the lunar environment is where they really
shouldn't require any humans, perhaps not even for the task of
deploying such instruments, that is if we could manage to keeping our
coo; long enough as to work with them Russians for mutually getting to
the level of our actually having an honest robotic/AI fly-by-rocket
lander that could sufficiently down-range and maneouver about as to
carfully landing such robotic packages onto a less dusty lunar mountain
or crater rim of mostly bedrock.
Since this form of imaging receiving aperture effort (good for
multi-looks of 16 bits/pixel) would be a one-way deployment, whereas
such this fly-by-rocket lander could even need become nicely managed
via remote pilot, especially doable if that RC pilot were somewhat
nearby as station-keeping within the relative safety of the ME-L1
(mutual gravity-well) sweet spot, whereas the vidio responce feedback
delay of perhaps what's created by 62,000 km would be a reasonably
short 207 ms, thus short enough that an interactive human interface
into flying that otherwise robotic/AI fly-by-rocket lander should
become doable and, because it's not going to be returning any samples
is why it's going to have plenty of spare fuel capacity as for
accommodating several extra minutes worth of controlled flight, so as
to allow for the best landing site selection.
> After all, given simply odds alone, then no killer Sednas will be
> heading our way any time soon. So we therefore have plenty of time to
> work on better projects in the future.
I agree that unless ETs get really pissed at us, there's not much
chance of an icy Sedna arriving any time soon, although it certainly
would be a nice thing to know via your super computer as to just how
much of applied energy and/or of an impact upon Sedna at the right
time, proper vector and velocity for thus directing the likes of Sedna
into going wherver we'd like it to go. In which case our exploration of
distant places can be accommodated by way of our getting attached
and/or situated deep into the icy orb that's going to protect us and
even fuel our mission to wherever. Such as taking advantage of the
outward bound trajectory of Sedna; what would it take as to directing
Sedna towards the Sirius star system?
Once past the mutual nullification point of no-return, from that point
on Sedna shouldn't require all that much applied thrust as to getting
on some real speed. If it weren't for the Vt(terminal velocity) of
space travel, say 30,000 km/s might even become doable by the time it's
getting close to the Sirius star system, though having to utilize
Sirius-b as a gravational breaking maneouver might get a wee bit testy
unless the ETs of Sirius-c manage to salvage our sorry butts before
it's too late.
> So there is simply no known level 10 sure impact heading our way.
I'm assuming a "level 10" is Earth killer, or at least a significant
portion of Earth would ve vaporised upon such an impact. Obvously
you're assuming that ETs (God's little helpers) haven't the capability
nor do they see any need of their having to terminate a serious threat
of our mutated DNA/RNA tghat's about to run amuck on other worlds.
> Well despite your paranoia it is worth other people remembering that
> they are more likely to die in an asteroid impact than in a plane
> crash. Simply because, despite asteroid impacts being so rare, then
> when they do hit they kill so many people at once.
It's a darn good thing that you weren't around when Einstein was alive,
as you'd certainly be calling that fool paranoid for thinking outside
the box. What other thinking that's external to your mainstream status
quo box is worthy of being classified as paranoid?
> I am still waiting for you to answer my question concerning your
> stated belief when NASA once again lands on the Moon and directly
> shows off evidence of their previous landings.
> So this theory will quickly fade, not when NASA points out that it is
>false, but when they once again directly prove that it can be done.
When and if NASA manages to land whatever upon the moon, and if at that
time they manage as to document the previous Apollo remainders just as
having been depicted in their cold-war rusemaster NOVA infomercials,
millions of history books and science journals, and as such not
otherwise depicting of the impact craters as having been suggested via
the laws of physics, our total lack of any such fly-by-rocket
capability and via satellite images, as then I'll have to retract and
fully appolgise my sorry butt off. However, there's been decades of
time for the likes of much simpler one-way robotic missions to have
accomplished such imaging as well as a multitude of other important
sorts of moon-science and especially Earth-science if anything should
actually survive a remote landing and deployment, yet for more than a
dacade even the LUNAR-A mission has been kept on hold, denied their
mission because I believe such would simply have been far too revealing
as to the inner composition, of the near surface and even of the actual
surface environment of where it's of such a nasty dark and thick duxty
composite of substances that are not hardly clumping, and otherwise
quit reactive in the matter of physics-101 fact of such creating
secondary/recoil photons, thus blowing our perpetrated cold-war lids
clean off, and then some.
Remember that the original Apollo orbits (BTW; not necessarily manned)
of roughly 100 km off the deck and with the added advantage of using a
10X telephoto lens was good for 38,440:1 magnification as having been
recorded upon essentially B&W 8192 x 8192 pixel equivelent film of 256
bit/pixel resolution that wasn't exactly insufficient as to have easily
recorded their own landing sites. Out of hundreds if not thousands of
such frames from the official Apollo archives, oddly there's not one
such image to behold. Ever since there's not been squat worth of
anything as good nor better, even the SMART-1 images of somewhat less
resoultion are being sequestered. So, you tell me what's been going on.
Actually, team KECK with the latest in 2 micron/pixel format should be
getting damn good, whereas that's almost as good of resolution of
what's possible to record upon high-resolution B&W film, especially
interesting would be if that's a sufficient exposure onto the positive
photographic plate that's many fold better resolution than film.
BTW; I've noticed that you haven't bothered as to post a link to any
such Apollo landing site. If you like, I can share lots of such
official images that are perfectly believablwe of whatever's artificial
that impacted and thus vaporised itself into the moon.
> From my research I see no evidence that the Sirius star system will
> actually come close to us any time soon.
Obviously your form of research employs as much evidence exclusion as
it'll take, as to ignoring the 750 thousand year ice-core samples that
clearly shows a hard-scientific matter of fact as to the 105,000 some
odd year cycle of CO2 and other atmospheric gas related elements that
you can't otherwise explain as being terrestrial and or locally solar
influx caused, nor has there been any terrestrial geological cycle
that's capable, which leaves us with the external influx of something
quite Sirius like as being at the root cause of such fluctuations.
Obviously the Sirius star system is by far the biggest and nearest
other significant star system that's worthy of affecting our
environment and, you've obviously got nothing other on the table that's
the least bit worthy of a similar stellar cycle as having a similar
energy influx potential as per what could have been delivered via our
orbiting the Sirius star system.
If everthing else within this universe is supposedly associated with
and/or orbits something, then why can't we, as cohabitating within our
solar system, have been as a collective of planets along with that of
our small sun orbiting the likes of Sirius?
Obviously you can't have your mainstream status quo cake and eate it
too. So which is it?
> So maybe you can tell me just when Sirius is due to pay us a visit,
> when in 100,000 years time is not it. The Sirius star system is 8.57
> light years away, where it currently seems to be moving at a relative
> speed of 7.6 km/s.
I've been estimating roughly 64,000 some odd years from now is when
we'll be getting real close to one another. Obviously I'd need a super
computer and some wizard like yourself that's smart enough for
utilizing that computer along with it's software, as to getting that
estimate a bit more refined.
> Since one light year is 9.46 × 10^12, then 8.57 light years means that
> Sirius is about 81,072,200,000,000 km away. And at 7.6 km/s it would
> take 339,190 years to get here.
Since we're the ping-pong ball of this situation (obviously Sirius
isn't being attracted towards us), and because of our relative mass
being 3.5:1 less than that of the Sirius star system. Unless I'm
actually the village idiot that folks have been insisting upon; isn't
the velocity of an elliptical orbit somewhat of a variable, especially
from our perspective by way of our mutually coexisting within such a
tight elliptical path?
It's been awhile since I'd checked as to what others had been posting
as to the relative motion of Sirius but, I'd thought that we were still
in a recession mode of roughly 8+ some odd km/s, thus within the
departing phase of an elliptical orbit. Although, if that's already
turned itself around as for becoming a closing SOA that's 7.6 km/s,
then obviously at some point we're going to accelerate until we're
traveling at a good rate of velocity towards our future reunion with
Sirius. If the average velocity of our closing in on Sirius was just 40
km/s we'd be right on track with my 64,000 year mark of being UV,
near-UV and loads of near-blue photon dosed to a fairlywell. I suppose
that'll have to place our average interstellar orbital velocity at
nearly 50 km/s since we're in what should become a reasonably tight
elliptical path.
BTW; what's the interstellar SM Vt(stellar medium of terminal velocity
or slug coefficient) worth these days?
Of course, if you should come across some other stellar item that's in
sufficient motion as to being a better alternate of a 105,000 some odd
year cycle, of a similar stellar quality of illumination consideration
to boot, then by all means lets hear about it. Since Sirius-b was once
upon a time a red-giant and Sirius-a was most likely a bit more
visually intensive than what the human eye perceive as of today,
chances are that the next encounter isn't going to be nearly as
beneficial to the likes of melting vast amounts of ice and of enhancing
the reproducing cycles of diatoms. However, I can't image any other
stellar source of such worthy illumination contributing to our
environment to the point of causing such a horrific ice melt and
subsequent diatom spurt of growth, thus re-shaping the landscape prior
to becoming more than half frozen again. Of course since we humans have
managed to shift the global albedo of mother Earth into the nearest
space-toilet, chance are that this planet isn't ever going to see
another full-blown ice age, thus ever eroding of the remaining land
masses is about all that we've got to look forward to, therefore lesser
dry land and more ocean spread from the melting ice and erosion
displacements might get us down to less than 20% worth of dry land, of
which at best we'll have all of 10% to survive upon at that.
Lets see what the likes of 12.5 billions worth of arrogant, greedy and
obviously bigoted folks can manage upon 5e13 m2, as per whatever it's
worth in terms of their surviving WW-III, WW-IV and of whomever's left
to fight the good fight of WW-V over the last few tonnes worth of
extremely low-grade coal, a few drops of oil as having been extracted
from oily dirt and shale, and over the last few m3 worth of NG. After
all, that's 4,000 m2/soul of nutrient starved and incest mutated soil
to work with that surrounded by oceans of dead zones that only a few
species of jellyfish can survive within.
Obviously you and I will not be here to enjoy all the warm and fuzzy
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent. Thus by your all-know
expertise and vast talents should not be wasted on what doesn't matter
to yourself or those of your mainstream Skull and Bones status quo
because, apparently you're all headed for the likes of Mars, or of some
other God forsaken place that's other than Venus.
As to Pluto being contributed and/or skewed from out of our Kuiper/Oort
zone by whatever the nearby Sirius star system had to offer;
> LOL. More like Neptune. I am also sure that it is true to say that
> Neptune does send your KBOs all over the place.
No freaking LOL because, instead of my being limited to your
terrestrial and otherwise local solar system as affecting our
environment and the likes of Pluto, I'm clearly a free though somewhat
dyslexic soul that's thinking way outside of that highly restrictive
and somewhat religious/political conditional-physics ideology box, a
box of such profound social/political and religoius limitations that it
quite frankly sucks and blows at the same time.
I do however greatly appreciate the following;
> A near by black hole should not concern you much anyway, when their
> major output will be gravity. So they would move about like a star
> within an actual star system.
However, what if said black hole is actually an amount of anti-matter
that's nicely cloaked, that's simply a core or seed of anti-matter as
having become surrounded by those trillions upon trillions of nearly
resting photons/m3, as perhaps there should be at some point within or
near the event horizon that's offering somewhat of a nullification of
gravity or matter/anti-matter forces.
As to stuff as derived from the Sirius star system becoming an issue;
> Not within 100,000 years it won't.
Obviously this reply of yours is yet another example of your mainstream
status quo box limitations taking control over your incest cloned
intellectual mindset that simply can't ever get unplugged from your
collective without fear of being terminated by your own kind.
> Theory says that there is a link between passing star systems and mass
> extinctions on Earth, but this is based on all star systems and not
> just Sirius.
Being that Sirius is quite massive and having been relatively nearby,
I'll have to agree 100% with such perceptions that essentially all
things are somehow interrelated and somewhat interactive. What do you
suppose the vast numbers of photons (perhaps 1e100 photoms per atom)
has if anything to do with that?
> Your Sedna-like impact in one location won't affect all the rest in
> other words. So we don't need radars on the Moon, but an efficient
> space program, and then people breeding like rabbits.
Sorry my friend but, we simply can't possibly get ourselves safely nor
efficiently from here to anywhere other without the LSE-CM/ISS up and
running. Get it?
Secondly; the notion of getting Sedna into impacting anything is at
best intended for icing down the likes of Venus, which is an absolute
win-win for all but a few tens of thousands of Venusians or of those
ETs as having been camping out on Venus. Adding a good dosage of H2O
into that environment should make a good number of nasty things quire
reactive to say the least.
> So simply by getting extra friendly with your partner, and supporting
> space programmes, then you can rest assured that you are helping our
> species survive a Sedna-like impact.
Obviously you're the one that's going intellectually postal by way of
your being so anti-evidence, thus anti-science and actually you're also
intellectually somewhat bigoted if not anti-God and of otherwise anti
upon just about everything and/or anything under the sun that's not
your idea or that otherwise rocks your pathetic mainstream status quo
fleet of boats. Here I'm just the local messenger from hell that's
trying my warm and fuzzy best to summarily sink your entire fleet of
such status quo boats and lo and behold, darn if it seems as though
you're not about to help with the task at hand. Why is that?
There's nothing of what I've uncovered or discovered or having proposed
that's anti-God, anti-physics, anti-science nor anti-humanity. Yet just
about every other phrase that you've offered is about as negative
and/or anti-whatever or simply do-nothing as you can get. Where the
hell were you when our resident warlord(GW Bush) was claiming all of
those WMD existed, or before then when he was pushing Osama bin Laden's
buttons?
Brad Guth
How about just utilizing a given protomoon or protoplanet as the ride
itself?
How hard could it be in terms of GJ or TJ worth of applied energy as to
promote something Sedna like that's already at the extremes of it's
departure from our solar system, into leaving town for good?
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman,
>How about just utilizing a given protomoon or protoplanet as the ride
>itself?
I was thinking about that. It would make a nice home during the long
slow trip.
>How hard could it be in terms of GJ or TJ worth of applied energy as to
>promote something Sedna like that's already at the extremes of it's
>departure from our solar system, into leaving town for good?
Trying to increase the velocity of one of these KBOs is simply not
worth your time, due to the huge energy required to do so.
Still, I heard a report some time ago concerning a star system that is
in the process of being flung clean out of our galaxy. It seems that
it got a little too close to the central super-massive black hole,
picked up considerable velocity in the process, then proceeded on it's
way to being tossed right out of our galaxy. Bye, bye, little star.
So it seems easy enough to see that some planet, or proto-planet,
could have also been subject to a large gravity assisted velocity
boost at some point.
And so it is just the case of keeping a close watch out for anything
moving at a rapid pace in the direction you want to go. Head out
there, land on it, set up home, then your grandchildren can hop off at
the destination.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
> It would still be like trying to cross the ocean using continental
> drift...
butt-naked upon interstellar photons while getting summarily pulverised
by whatever's physically coming along.
In case you haven't checked lately, it's downright humanly DNA/RNA
nasty if not lethal out there, that is unless you're surrounded by
sufficient mass, ideally that as having an atmospheric buffer zone
that's not only being sufficient for keeping the bad sorts of physical
and radiation out but, as for such shielding not creating nearly the
sorts of those nearby secondary/recoil TBI forms of hard-X-ray
radiation that has been well known to cause somewhat negative impacts
against any notions of our having to survive such extended treks.
I believe this is especially important at 10%'c' (30e3 km/s).
Unless you're speaking of a sufficiently fortified spaceship as having
been outfitted at the moon-dirt depot in the sky, as easily
accommodated by the LSE-CM/ISS, with having an added 50 tonne/m2 worth
of basalt surround so that such a physical shield density can not only
manage to take a physical licking and keep on ticking but, of such
being sufficient as to keeping those secondary/recoil photons down to a
survivable dull roar without your having to rely upon a cash of banked
bone marrow.
~
Don't look now: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs plus other somewhat testy topics by;
Joe Strout
Cardman <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote:
> So it seems easy enough to see that some planet, or proto-planet,
> could have also been subject to a large gravity assisted velocity
> boost at some point.
>
> And so it is just the case of keeping a close watch out for anything
> moving at a rapid pace in the direction you want to go. Head out
> there, land on it, set up home, then your grandchildren can hop off at
> the destination.
Except that, assuming you want a reasonable *gentle* landing on it,
you've got to match velocities with it anyway. And if you can do that,
you don't really need the planetoid -- you can go in the direction (and
speed) you wanted without it.
(Of course the planetoid may be useful as a source of material during
the trip, but that didn't seem to be your point.)
Best,
- Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Cardman
>Except that, assuming you want a reasonable *gentle* landing on it,
>you've got to match velocities with it anyway. And if you can do that,
>you don't really need the planetoid -- you can go in the direction (and
>speed) you wanted without it.
>
>(Of course the planetoid may be useful as a source of material during
>the trip, but that didn't seem to be your point.)
That was my point when I mentioned setting up home here. In any case a
trip to the next solar system is still a very long journey. So it
makes sense to build yourself a nice base and to make use of local
resources.
Like water alone is bound to be largely available.
Cardman.
Brad Guth
Terrific (nearly human) feedback, as to regarding a proto-moon or
proto-planet as offering a nifty ticket to ride;
> I was thinking about that. It would make a nice home during the long
> slow trip.
Once past the point of no-return, such as per headed towards Sirius
isn't all that far to the mutual gravity-well, whereas from that point
on the amount of applied energy for getting some serious velocity on
should not be all that insurmountable, especially if something of
fusion were applied.
> Trying to increase the velocity of one of these KBOs is simply not
> worth your time, due to the huge energy required to do so.
A little bit of continuous energy as applied for years at a time is
just as good and a perhaps whole lot safer than a big-bang worth of the
same applied force, although I'd previously suggested getting something
other to smash into the likes of Sedna as might be a viable solution,
that is as long as you resided on the opposit side until all the debris
settled down to a dull roar.
> I heard a report some time ago concerning a star system that is
> in the process of being flung clean out of our galaxy. It seems that
> it got a little too close to the central super-massive black hole,
> picked up considerable velocity in the process, then proceeded on it's
> way to being tossed right out of our galaxy. Bye, bye, little star.
Very good, as that's another indication that things happen due to a
couple of sufficient gravity nodes getting a bit too close for comfort.
At least that's somewhat along the lines of what I believed happened
between us and the Sirius star system, that which may have given us the
likes of Venus and possibly an icy protomoon of perhaps 4,000 km worth
that became our un-iced moon.
> And so it is just the case of keeping a close watch out for anything
> moving at a rapid pace in the direction you want to go. Head out
> there, land on it, set up home, then your grandchildren can hop off at
> the destination.
That's better than you might think because, we are not going anywhere
without a good and extremely robust form of spacecraft for shelter,
such as a proto-planet or spent star is just as good if not somewhat
better off because of how porous them suckers should be. If it's
sufficiently porous enough as to get inside without extensive
excavation, whereas that's just the best sort of long-distance worthy
ride in town. Possibly our moon offers a few geode pockets that can be
exploited for the task of surviving upon that nasty basalt rock.
QUESTION; if situated 100 km deep into the surface of Sedna, what
amount of an atmospheric pressure or density worth of an atmosphere is
possible to maintain without artificial pressurization?
Same question as applied for that of being situated deep within our
moon.
~
Don't ever look: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs & other somewhat testy topics by;
Brad Guth
Interesting stuff, in that I certainly have nothing to contribute/argue
against "Teleportation".
Obviously if we were somehow converted into the greater population and
vast spectrum worth of photons, as that way we'd have at least 'c' as a
viable velocity.
I've estimated that there could be 1e100 photons/atom. That's a lot of
energy going every which way but lose, possibly of what's capable of
safely surrounding anti-matter and of whatever dark-matter is mostly
all about.
~
Don't look: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems there's
been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of protomoons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs & other somewhat testy topics by;
Cardman
wrote:
>Cardman,
>Terrific (nearly human) feedback, as to regarding a proto-moon or
>proto-planet as offering a nifty ticket to ride;
>> I was thinking about that. It would make a nice home during the long
>> slow trip.
>
>Why all that slow?
Distance.
>Once past the point of no-return, such as per headed towards Sirius
>isn't all that far to the mutual gravity-well, whereas from that point
>on the amount of applied energy for getting some serious velocity on
>should not be all that insurmountable, especially if something of
>fusion were applied.
The Sirius star system is 8.57 light years away. Since this plan
relies on simply hitching a ride on something heading that way, then I
would hate to calculate the numbers of how long it would really take.
The original settlers would not be alive at the destination in any
case.
However, you do not want to go to Sirius anyway, when good old Alpha
Centauri is our closest neighbour. More directly we would want to head
towards Proxima Centauri. This is because at 4.22 light years we save
0.14 light years over going to Alpha Centauri A or B.
You can soon expand to all three stars here, but I know from
experience (don't ask...) that even crossing this 0.14 light years is
a real bitch.
And even this trip to our closest neighbour would take a very long
time. At least you would have a nice home to live, reproduce, and die
in.
>> Trying to increase the velocity of one of these KBOs is simply not
>> worth your time, due to the huge energy required to do so.
>
>A little bit of continuous energy as applied for years at a time is
>just as good and a perhaps whole lot safer than a big-bang worth of the
>same applied force,
True, but you would still have to find an energy source that could
supply the required amount.
>although I'd previously suggested getting something
>other to smash into the likes of Sedna as might be a viable solution,
All depends on what is headed where.
>that is as long as you resided on the opposit side until all the debris
>settled down to a dull roar.
Predicting the resulting direction and speed from such an impact would
be interesting. Still, in any case you will have a crap load of mass
to move, where you just won't have the energy.
Even all the nuclear bombs on this planet would not even produce a
scratch on the energy that you need.
>> I heard a report some time ago concerning a star system that is
>> in the process of being flung clean out of our galaxy. It seems that
>> it got a little too close to the central super-massive black hole,
>> picked up considerable velocity in the process, then proceeded on it's
>> way to being tossed right out of our galaxy. Bye, bye, little star.
>
>Very good, as that's another indication that things happen due to a
>couple of sufficient gravity nodes getting a bit too close for comfort.
That was a more unusual exception. In any case any local creatures
would have had a bad day long ago, when drifting into the galactic
center is just not a good thing.
Since we are not heading there, then so will our star system remain as
a part of this galaxy for a long time.
>At least that's somewhat along the lines of what I believed happened
>between us and the Sirius star system, that which may have given us the
>likes of Venus and possibly an icy protomoon of perhaps 4,000 km worth
>that became our un-iced moon.
It would be a highly questionable theory to think that any of the main
planets in this solar system came from outside this system. Scientist
have very nice models to show how local matter formed the planets that
we now have.
Also this one star on a rapid course to exiting this galaxy should
highlight how rare such gravity bursts are. So it could be true to say
that any planet being thrown clean out of a solar system is a very
rare thing indeed.
We at least do not yet have any evidence of such an example. Sedna is
a theory until they find more examples of KBOs in unusual orbits.
>> And so it is just the case of keeping a close watch out for anything
>> moving at a rapid pace in the direction you want to go. Head out
>> there, land on it, set up home, then your grandchildren can hop off at
>> the destination.
>
>That's better than you might think because, we are not going anywhere
>without a good and extremely robust form of spacecraft for shelter,
>such as a proto-planet or spent star is just as good if not somewhat
>better off because of how porous them suckers should be.
Depends on what you have. I guess something of a smaller size is a lot
more likely. So just drill a big hole into it and live in the middle.
>If it's sufficiently porous enough as to get inside without extensive
>excavation,
That is unlikely. Asteroids are not well known to have caves.
>whereas that's just the best sort of long-distance worthy
>ride in town.
Previous ideas using asteroids for the trip imagined using the core of
the asteroid to fuel your engines. Something moving in your direction
already makes things so much easier.
>Possibly our moon offers a few geode pockets that can be
>exploited for the task of surviving upon that nasty basalt rock.
I have no idea what cavern space there is inside the moon. Not much I
would say, when such places can often result from flowing water.
>QUESTION; if situated 100 km deep into the surface of Sedna,
You are hoping. Our deepest mines on earth only go like 3 to 4km down.
>what amount of an atmospheric pressure or density worth of an atmosphere
>is possible to maintain without artificial pressurization?
A considerably high pressure. You also really do not need to go down
that far, when the vast volume of material above your head, subject to
the local pull of gravity, can indeed hold back a lot of pressure.
Consider it like a volcano on Earth. Like that one in the US that
quite a few years ago blew its top clean off. As the ground keeping
that top on was not that thick, but where the pressure grew and grew
until finally it exploded and things were flung very many miles away.
So the truth is that you do not need much ground above you to hold in
your common atmospheric pressure.
>Same question as applied for that of being situated deep within our
>moon.
One of my Moon ideas was just to have them find a nice straight cliff
edge, or a worst a hill, on the Moon. Then they can drill in, down,
before it levels out into an underground base.
Just fit a couple of airlock doors on near your front entrance,
checking for suitable structure of course, where then you can
pressurize your base.
It would be nice to have multiple ways in and out though, when the
base expands. Not to mention internal airlock doors for better safe
than sorry.
And whenever you needed more room, then you can just drill out more
space. You can just imagine a time switching team working 24/7 and
carving out room after room, level after level, eventually even
cutting out some huge chambers.
Find the right location and you could even process the ores that they
dig out. Sounds like a good idea to like concrete over your walls
through, when that stops bits falling off and moving about.
I have always liked that idea. Complete radiation protection. And as
much expansion as you want in a situation kind of like an ants nest.
Maybe NASA can consider that once they find their bouncy castle base a
bit restrictive.
Cardman.
Scott Hedrick
> It would be a highly questionable theory
Brad doesn't know any other kind.
Brad Guth
BTW; since you've proven your hidden agenda more than a few times, and
it's perfectly obvious that you can't therefore allow your borg self to
think the least bit outside of your incest cloned little box, perhaps I
should not bother taxing your collective mindset with the matter of
bloody fact that I wasn't referring to any stinking caped well or
closed off cave when I'd mentioned the 100+ km depth into the likes of
Sedna or that of our moon without usage of "artificial pressurization".
Obviously I already knew that a few meters worth of solid basalt would
contain and sustain perhaps as great as 100 bar, and certainly the
likes of containing 1 bar is a rather pathetic physics-101 joke as for
artificially and/or geologically capping that low density amount of
atmosphere by way of being situated barely underground. However, I'd
specifically stipulated as suggested by the "without artificial
pressurization" intentions of such being that of an open well, pit or
cave like hollow rill or whatever is sufficiently porous about the
likes of such low density Kuiper/Oort proto-moons or proto-planets, as
possibly even fragments of spent stars seems reasonably likely as for
such being relatively porous, and thus such openings are NOT of those
generally capped off to the ambient surface atmospheric pressure, that
which in the case of our moon isn't all that terrific to start off with
(0.03 psi [0.02 bar] of mostly argon at best), although obviously Titan
at 1.5 bar is quite nicely accommodated with a good amount of available
pressure.
> I have no idea what cavern space there is inside the moon. Not much I
> would say, when such places can often result from flowing water.
You already know as a matter of record that LUNAR-A would have told us
many such things as to our moon innards as of more than a decade ago.
There could exist multiple hollow rilles and even massive geode like
pockets that are ideally suited for the safe keeping of us humans. So,
what's your pathetic mainstream status quo and perpetrated cold-war
excuse this time?
As to the task of our utilizing whatever's already up there and having
been somewhat going the right direction to start with;
if you're already nearing or past the nullification point of no-return,
nearly any amount of applied energy/thrust is going to increase the
velocity of getting whatever amount of mass towards the likes of Sirius
or towards that of whatever alternate God forsaken place you'd care to
venture off to, as perhaps such energy/thrust utilized upon refining
your path as you're being sucked towards the massive gravity influence
of Sirius is good enough. A tether dipole of several hundred km might
easily extract several TJ worth of usable energy on the fly, thus
perhaps for every deployed 1000 km there'd be 10 TJ worth of
essentially free/renewable energy for creating applied thrust or that
of pulling such things along might be the actual case seems perfectly
doable. A set of 10,000 km dipole elements might thereby contribute 100
TJ, as in continuous safe energy as to accomplish whatever push/pull
considerations.
Since Earth has had all sorts of fancy dancy energy related elements
that'll react with one another, perhaps the likes of our moon as having
tonnes of He3 plus many other raw elements to burn via fusion or
perhaps even a large cash of nuclear reaction potential is there to
behold, therefore the likes of a somewhat reddish Sedna might share a
whole lot more energy worth than just plain old dirty ice, although ice
in of itself can become worth quite a bit of reactive energy potential.
Instead of your easily contributing anything that's pecifically topic
positive, obviously your ulterior MI5/NSA spook job has been to
distract folks as much as possible away from anything involving our
moon, Venus or that of the Sirius star system. Why is that?
As to your previous notions of artificially drilling into our moon
offers no viable physics nor hard-science as to accomplishing that task
because, we still have no viable means of even safely delpoying small
robotics worth of anything upon our moon, nor upon any other near-zero
atmospheric surface. What that drilling quest needs is the LSE-CM/ISS
up and running, then as for artificially going into the moon becomes a
doable consideration in far more ways than most folks can possibly
imagine.
However, since you're so absolutely in love our resident warlord(GW
Bush) and apparently of all the national and international warlords
that came before, although not as per loving them sick bastards to
death as I and millions of others would have hoped, in that case I'll
share off a few more of my lose cannon tit for tats as to contributing
what's terribly wrong with your incest cloned borg mindset buttology.
Guess what fool on the hill; when it come to such computer models, you
get exactly whatever you pay for;
> It would be a highly questionable theory to think that any of the main
> planets in this solar system came from outside this system. Scientist
> have very nice models to show how local matter formed the planets that
> we now have.
If those computer models are supposedly so super terrific and thus
sufficiently explain upon all there is to know, then why haven't the
relatively close associations and stellar motions of the Sirius star
system been taken to task?
Secondary/related question;
What the freaking hell are are you and your borg friends so afraid of?
Possible answer;
Other than accidently proving my arguments even 1% right, as such would
become worth far more than all of what MI5/NSA~NASA has accomplished to
date, thus obviously you're big-time avoiding the crapolla flak from
what should soon be coming off that big-ass fan, as apparently being
worth all the tea in China.
Too bad you're such a pro cold-war and subsequent pro brown-nosed
suck-up borg as to whichever Skull and Boned bastards are encharge of
squeezing your private parts. You're so remorseless that you can't even
admit as to how many trillions of hard earned dollars our mutually
perpetrated cold-war(s) has cost us in terms of direct and indirect
lives, not to mention the decades worth of technological and thus
scientific set-backs. You're so freaking anti-ET and thus anti-God and
energy/blood sucking thirsty to boot, plus intellectually bigoted that
it's fairly hard to tell the mitigated crapolla from all of your
shinolla worth of your intellectual flatulence that sucks and blows at
the same time. Stop pretending to give a tinker damn about science, our
environment nor anything about humanity because, you're playing both
sides of the fence as being nothing but another typically three-faced
LLPOF mutated freak of whatever the mainstream status quo created as to
suit their ulterior motives and hidden agendas, and you're simply way
to snookered as well as summarily dumb and dumber, as in dumbfounded to
realize otherwise.
You can't possibly love this perverted and immoral system when your
system has been absolutely biologically and intellectually rotten to
it's core.
Expecting our NASA to some day discover that their "bouncy castle base
a bit restrictive" is yet another worse off notion than asking a
certain Pope going postal over Cathars to have a little remorse, or
that of Hitler to being a wee bit nicer to folks of all types (not just
Jews that got their kicks via pointing out Jesus Christ to those nice
Romans) that were getting in his way, or that of asking a certain
resident warlord(GW Bush) as to defend himself and those of his good
buddies in a tribunal of crimes against humanity. Obviously none of
that's going to happen back then, not now or in the foreseeable future
when there are such mainstream status quo brown-nosed folks like
yourself taking up the slack of whatever toilet paper shortage, on
behalf of your butt-wipe worshiping thy almighty global dominating and
energy pillaging bloody buck at the demise of anyone getting in your
way (I think I'd rather take my chances with Hitler).
It's not that I don't appreciate some of your nearly human/honest
feedback. However, I certainly hope that I've pissed you off because,
that's exactly what I'd intended since you're actually such an
intellectual and scientific three-faced moron of a bigot on steroids.
Unfortunately, words are rather pointless when actions should have been
taken as of decades ago. So where the heck were you decades ago?
~
Don't look or think: in spite of the orchestrated status quo, it seems
there's been other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive
within the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of proto-moons, Venus ETs, Earthly ETs & other somewhat testy topics
Hop David
Cardman wrote:
>>QUESTION; if situated 100 km deep into the surface of Sedna,
>
>
> You are hoping. Our deepest mines on earth only go like 3 to 4km down.
Deeper tunnels collapse because of the weight of the earth above them.
Also continental drift causes stress to some deep tunnels.
With less gravity, weight of the material above tunnels would be less.
There's no plate tectonics on most small bodies.
I believe tunnels could go much deeper on minor planets or moons.
--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html
Autymn D. C.
> Deeper tunnels collapse because of the weight of the earth above them.
> Also continental drift causes stress to some deep tunnels.
>
> With less gravity, weight of the material above tunnels would be less.
> There's no plate tectonics on most small bodies.
>
> I believe tunnels could go much deeper on minor planets or moons.
Rubbish primitive human scientist thinking! Make a tunnel branch by
carving out the [smooth] /outline/ of a circular, dipping tunnel that
is broken once by the car, then displace this car however deep one
wants.
-Aut
Brad Guth
I tend to agree and/or favor the notion that of smaller orbs or the
remains of spent stars as having cooled somewhat faster should have
numerous deep open vents and/or somewhat massive geode pockets worth
getting into. Whereas big Earth like orbs are simply too compacted to
suit natural passages much more than a few km at best.
Going sufficiently deep is at least one viable method of obtaining an
ambient pressure zone that's worth utilizing for what it is.
~
In spite of the ongoing orchestrated status quo, it seems there's been
other life upon Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) as interactive within
the ME-L1/EM-L2 sweet-spot
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Of things Sirius, proto-moons, Venus, Earthly ETs & somewhat testy
Rand Simberg
<do-...@spam-me.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>It is no good mining He3 until you have a real life working
>application. Beyond making a He3 bomb that is. Oddly enough that seems
>like the one reason that Warmonger Bush would approve of it.
"Warmonger Bush"?
Cardman
Don't tempt me. Just accept that I think that he is a moron.
Cardman.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>First, we get Dr. Fiorella Terenzi into the tightest, most form-fitting
>chrome spacesuit you've ever laid eyes on.
I've actually met Dr. Terenzi, and she was (and I suspect still is)
seriously hot, but not in the way you might expect from any pictures
you find of her (she was in a business suit, with minimal makeup--she
didn't need any). She's one of those rare people who actually look
*better* than any of the publicity shots.
Rand Simberg
>>>It is no good mining He3 until you have a real life working
>>>application. Beyond making a He3 bomb that is. Oddly enough that seems
>>>like the one reason that Warmonger Bush would approve of it.
>>
>>"Warmonger Bush"?
>
>Don't tempt me. Just accept that I think that he is a moron.
That's OK. Based on that, I think you're a moron, too.
Brad Guth
I think that I'm beginning to like you again.
As long as you're thinking outside the box, in that our resident
warlord(GW Bush) is in fact a certified warmonger moron, perhaps
yourself and some of your friends of this ongoing incest worthy
mutation of your intellectual mainstream cesspool, as typically having
been offered by your all-knowing borg collective of such wizards and
cloak and dagger spookology bastards from hell, has for their offering
us anything whatsoever worthy of any such R&D prototype of whatever's
fly-by-rocket, in order to let us poor and uneducated minions be so
thoroughly impressed as it's dropped from some high places and safely
manages a maneuvering down-range worth of a soft landing instead of
another impact crater. As easily dumbfounded as I am, I'll even accept
upon anything of whatever's Russian, as to their supposedly superior
robotic/AI fly-by-rocket expertise of their mutually perpetrated
cold-war 70s worth of applied physics and technology should due just
fine and dandy.
Rand Simberg
<ieisbr...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Cardman,
>I think that I'm beginning to like you again.
>As long as you're thinking outside the box, in that our resident
>warlord(GW Bush) is in fact a certified warmonger moron,
That's hardly thinking outside the box. It's in fact the most
overused (and nonsensical) cliche of this millennium. I'd have
thought that an "out of the box" guy like you would come up with
something more original, not to mention insightful.
Cardman
Simberg) wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:56:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Cardman
><do-...@spam-me.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>way as to indicate that:
>
>>Don't tempt me. Just accept that I think that he is a moron.
>
>That's OK. Based on that, I think you're a moron, too.
Well, you asked for it. Example 0001/1000.
About a year ago Canada refused to join Bush's defense shield plan and
moron Bush, being unhappy that Canada did not submit to his warlord
will, said that they were "leaving themselves open to attack".
Working on paranoia were we?
I mean who the f**k is going to attack Canada? They are a nice
peaceful country who do not go around peeing people off. And so the
only missles landing on Canada will be those aiming for the US and
missing!
Cardman.
Rand Simberg
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:01:13 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 16:56:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, Cardman
>><do-...@spam-me.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
>>way as to indicate that:
>>
>>>Don't tempt me. Just accept that I think that he is a moron.
>>
>>That's OK. Based on that, I think you're a moron, too.
>
>Well, you asked for it. Example 0001/1000.
<laughing>
>
>About a year ago Canada refused to join Bush's defense shield plan and
>moron Bush, being unhappy that Canada did not submit to his warlord
>will, said that they were "leaving themselves open to attack".
>
>Working on paranoia were we?
>
>I mean who the f**k is going to attack Canada? They are a nice
>peaceful country who do not go around peeing people off. And so the
>only missles landing on Canada will be those aiming for the US and
>missing!
Yes, no one ever attacks "peaceful countries who do not go around
peeing people off." You know, like Poland in 1939. Who did they pee
off? Continue on in your safe delusions, sponsored by your protectors
to the south.
Scott Hedrick
>I
>is a moron.
If you say so.
Scott Hedrick
> I mean who the f**k is going to attack Canada?
*Clearly* you do not watch Saturday Night Live, where, 20+ years ago, when
ABC was broadcasting "Amerika" (which I still have on tape somewhere), SNL
broadcast "Kanada", the story of the Polynesian invasion.
Cardman
Simberg) wrote:
>Yes, no one ever attacks "peaceful countries who do not go around
>peeing people off." You know, like Poland in 1939. Who did they pee
>off? Continue on in your safe delusions, sponsored by your protectors
>to the south.
Yes, the invasion of a neighbouring country, under Hitler's plan to
control Europe. And so who neighbours Canada? Even I doubt that Bush
is that insane. I also recall that they tried that once before and
failed.
Cardman.
Rand Simberg
>On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:38:25 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
I think we'd probably succeed now. Particularly since you've
completely disarmed yourselves...
Scott Hedrick
>And so who neighbours Canada?
Why, Canada is *everyone's* neighbor!
As soon as the Islamists who bomb TV stations for broadcasting US programs
realize that they *really* come from Canada, Australia or New Zealand, guess
where they are going to activate their hidden cells?
"America ships its cultural bombs over here, so we will retaliate by bombing
the studios!"
"But, Osama, the studios are in Canada!"
"Then we shall bomb the hosers! Pass me a beer, eh?"
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
In the strange new world of PC thought, the proper reaction when coming
under attack is to start apologizing. A forceful reaction classifies
you as a warmonger. Dont you know this?:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Pat Flannery
Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>As soon as the Islamists who bomb TV stations for broadcasting US programs
>realize that they *really* come from Canada, Australia or New Zealand, guess
>where they are going to activate their hidden cells?
>
>
Now I'm having this horrible image of "Skippy, the Bush Kangaroo"
getting taken out by a IED. =-O
Pat
Brad Guth
> That's hardly thinking outside the box. It's in fact the most
> overused (and nonsensical) cliche of this millennium. I'd have
> thought that an "out of the box" guy like you would come up with
> something more original, not to mention insightful.
>>Cardman,
>>I think that I'm beginning to like you again.
>>As long as you're thinking outside the box, in that our resident
>>warlord(GW Bush) is in fact a certified warmonger moron,
certainly take whatever suggestions from your lead.
BTW; I'd much rather think inside the box, that is if that box doesn't
overfloweth with MOS disinformation and/or more of those nifty BBC/NOVA
class of infomercials that are not quite telling us the whole truth if
any truth whatsoever.
Brad Guth
>In the strange new world of PC thought, the proper reaction when coming
>under attack is to start apologizing. A forceful reaction classifies
>you as a warmonger. Dont you know this?:-)
Horse pucky, bull shit and you've otherwise got to be absolutely
kidding. At least I'll not accept any stinking apology from our
resident warlord(GW Bush) until that sick SOB of a bastard is
thoroughly dead and gone (the sooner the better).
It's very true to history of humanity killing off itself, typically
using the ruse of something other in order to cover thy stinking butt
after yet another LLPOF fiasco of WMD snipe hunting turns into an oil
plundering and pillaging quest.
Of course, we're still sufficiently sequestered here upon Earth,
without much chance of our excluding any space traveling ETs that I can
think of. Whereas an ET with just a few spare TJ(terajoules) worth of
fusion energy can easily redirect the likes of Sedna into pulverising
Earth.
If the trajectory and math is just right, a few GJ might even be
sufficient. Thereby death via Sedna might become the best icy solution
around for reducing the over-population of Earth while delivering a few
teratonnes of badly needed ice, thus getting out total dry land-mass
down to less than 20% should do the trick, while giving Earth a new and
rather massive crater of a deep ocean with new and improved forms of
terraformed life to boot.
Rand Simberg
<ieisbr...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Mati Meron;
>>In the strange new world of PC thought, the proper reaction when coming
>>under attack is to start apologizing. A forceful reaction classifies
>>you as a warmonger. Dont you know this?:-)
>
>Horse pucky, bull shit and you've otherwise got to be absolutely
>kidding. At least I'll not accept any stinking apology from our
>resident warlord(GW Bush) until that sick SOB of a bastard is
>thoroughly dead and gone (the sooner the better).
How would you expect him to apologize after he's dead? Not that he
will, of course, having nothing to apologize for (at least not to
you).
Brad Guth
His DNA/RNA as a compost will at least begin to heal the perpetrated
fiasco that has taken such a horrific toll.
Since some folks can't ever admit to making their fair share of
mistakes, and since we need to get on with salvaging our sorry butts,
thus we simply can't accomplish that goal as long as we're nursing such
sorry SOBs because of our remorseless national pride that sucks and
blows at the same time.