Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM
Brad Guth
Unlike so many objecting to absolutely anything lunar, or much worse
Venus, I'd prefer to be discussing the pros and cons and/or learning
of technology, using as few words as possible that pertain to the
"what ifs" and of whatever "can be for certain" accomplished as
humanly obtainable goals. Of course, if you simply can't stand my poor
syntax or decipher the context of what I'm trying to say, I think it's
your problem because, I certainly know exactly what I'm driving at,
just can't always type it out the way I'm thinking, which is more
often than not in reverse of the way you think. Unfortunately, I
believe that sort of makes me smarter than yourself.
Although, so much of what I'm hearing is of others crying over spilt
milk, such as over my poor syntax or insufficient scientific notations
and, otherwise I'm hearing just their sanctimonious justifications for
sustaining the current levels of orchestrated "spin" and "damage
control". As for my addressing such warm and fuffy flak, I'll need to
regress a wee bit into their deeply physic wonderland of those
seemingly opposed to reality, which is not of any profound statement
suggesting that I'm always right about everything, as I'll gladly take
being 10% right. Since I know for a fact that I've made mistakes and,
that I'll most likely make a tonne more, that's quite different from
the perspective of those living a lie and, then further lying about
that lie (sort of like asking the Pope to discuss Cathars and, he'll
reply by saying something like; what Cathars?).
Here I've been offering more worthwhile topics than all of what's been
posted to date, of doable agendas that are entirely above-board and,
of all things within our expertise, as well as within our existing
technology, not to mention being dirt cheap, of those ideas I believe
are worthy of further consideration. Although, all that I've seen and
heard from those opposing is essentially their absolute immoral
arrogance towards all of humanity, or of at least anyone that's
opposing the likes of their cost+ go-for-broke Earth Space Elevator or
bust campaign.
OOPS, I suppose now I've hurt your feelings. OOPS again, I forgot,
pro-NASA Borgs probably don't have any true feelings, as you're merely
being a collective opponent against absolutely anything or anyone
being the least bit anti-NASA, all the while you certainly don't seem
to be offering any justifiable morality for the sorts of agendas
that'll risk trillions and subsequently accomplishing their intended
task of unnecessary terminating lives on Earth. You'll notice, I
haven't even suggested that we can't possibly do the Earth based Space
Elevator, though I've noted that it's going to be extremely expensive
(at minimum 10 fold more than is being specified), still astronaut
risky and perhaps decades if not another half century down the road
and, it'll still not provide the necessary CO2 relief for delivering
those necessary tonnes of radiation shielding into GSO and beyond.
Associated with our accomplishing another lunar sort of thing, here's
more data upon the SAR imaging with only a slight steroid boost from
the moon;
It's been months since I've evaluated the German space team results of
the shuttle-bay SAR imaging of Earth, where they obtained 1.5 meter
resolution that was achieved from having those image receiving pixels
on the 60 meter boom or tower, while cruising along at 225 km. So,
lets see if I can get this part right, or at least right enough
In other words, the village idiot method of reverse engineering for
improving upon the 60 meter mast/boom SAR imaging technology is as
follows;
If those aperture pixels were 1024 x 1024
If for every 150 km = 1 meter resolution/pixel
If that was obtained from a 60 meter mast/boom
Instead of the 60 meter mast/boom, if using the moon at 384,500 km
Replacing the mast/boom by said moon, offers an image multiplyer of
6.4^6
If Earth VLA transmitters were utilized in place of shuttle array = X
10
If those SAR imaging pixels were upgraded from 1024 to 4096, that's =
X 4
I believe that so far we're at 2.56^8 worth of further magnification
Venus resolution at 41^6 km = (41^6 km / 150 km) / 2.56^8 = 1.066 mm
Mars resolution at 56^6 km = (56^6 km / 150 km) / 2.56^8 = 1.458 mm
Obviously the radar frequency itself becomes the limitation at such
close distances, so that the actual minimum resolution is going to
become limited to 1/2 wavelength, or perhaps as little as 10 mm
depending upon the radar frequency and of the number of looks per
pixel. Thus, we obviously need to have a distance greater than 400+^6
km before the resolution starts exceeding the 1/2 wavelength aspects
of any SAR imaging capability.
I believe that I'm being conservative about those Earth VLA radar
transmitters obtaining their 10 fold advantage, as I'm thinking we
should be capable of not only greatly enhancing the energy per look
but also of the focus, perhaps a factor of 100 fold is more likely and
quite possibly a 1000X can be created if a sufficient number of
globally spaced VLA transmitters were networked and implemented. This
greater VLA source of radar transmitters and of signal reflectors
might be asking a bit much but, at least it's Earth based (literally
eliminating astronaut burn-out), easily configured and, there's almost
no limit as to the pulse/peak energy that can be delivered and/or
subsequently reflected back at the lunar based aperture.
Utilizing the lunar space elevator CM and CCM as another SAR variation
that's certainly worth doing, though obviously not nearly as
magnifying but, there's absolutely no measurable atmospherics diluting
the signal, so the results could be refined into being as good if not
better.
CO2 is here to stay;
That other nasty part of my argument pertaining to our existing and
proposed future methods of mission deployments creating too much CO2.
That data came from several others including a few NASA moderated
documents, that if you're honestly accounting for the manufacturing of
various substances and items, of all the necessary processes and
assembly and ultimately of launching such into GSO is worth 100 times
in new CO2 created/deposited for Earth, that's creating 100 tonnes of
CO2 per each and every tonne of whatever delivered.
Not all that surprisingly; The sort of folks like Earl Colby, Jerry
Irvine and Brian Dunbar opposing, circumventing and/or bashing the
lunar space elevator issues are of the very same Borg like collective
that's opposing other life NOT as we know it, as perchance existing on
Venus. This being where the opposition uses their precious science and
laws of physics to continually qualify upon all of their ambitions,
irregardless of whatever outrageous the cost, of whatever astronaut
risk and/or of time-delay impact, to otherwise substantiate why
investing tens to hundreds of trillions into their Earth Space
Elevator is somehow worth the carnage, while oddly at the same time
excluding upon the implication of those very same sciences and laws of
physics whenever they're applied to anything lunar or Venus.
Apparently their science and of those laws of physics do not apply to
the moon or Venus, just Earth and Mars, or of whatever Hubbble is
looking at.
Oddly, we can manage to send multiple and relatively complex
interactive probes off to Mars, cost be damned, though we've not
implemented one cost effective interactive probe associated with our
moon, nothing thermal, nothing of radiation levels, no radio
transponding, no radar imaging, no acoustics nor of seismic data, no
cameras nor observing data gathering of any sort, oddly there's been
absolutely nothing whatsoever, even though we had adequate technology
prior to the final Apollo missions to have deployed any number of such
items and, of countless opportunities ever since and, as for regarding
those laser reflectors (somewhat invisible like all those WMDs) that
can't possibly reflect as many laser photons as the raw 20 km diameter
[314.16^6 m2] target zone of those infamous laser shot examples that
merely proves how the 10+% reflective index by itself is way more than
sufficient, where even a modern 2 km laser illuminated zone [3.14^6
m2] offers sufficient overkill as compared to that of any 2 m2 worth
of perfect reflectors, no matters how efficient they supposedly were).
Probes and transponders can be and have in fact been engineered and
constructed to survive the truly horrific space irradiation levels,
that would otherwise adversely impact if not kill off any astronaut.
I've learned that our electro-mechanical and electronics technology
for such robotic missions of today offers sufficient thermal endurance
to survive -279蚌 (100袁) to recently exceeding 1000蚌 (811袁)
environments, yet the ongoing arguments against deploying an
interactive Venus nighttime probe, or even a lunar/SAR receiving
module are blatantly in opposition to such ideas, where I believe this
is only because of the political cloak and dagger cold-war aspects,
and/or of subversive policy implications that perchance our infamous
NASA has slipped another cog, or worse.
How conspicuously odd, or perhaps how conspicuously arrogant can these
pagan God worshipers get. The continuing illogic of unnecessarily
endangering astronauts seems unlimited as well as unmitigated, but
more so evil or perhaps ulterior is their excluding 90% of Earth's
population from receiving life essential services and/or resources is
about as immoral (Pope/Cathar) as it gets, while they remain insistent
upon creating such massive new tonnage of artificial CO2 as a result
of following their skewed focus of expediting global warming in their
process of implementing global domination, which seems almost
criminal, as in premeditated 1st degree murder, as these folks (NASA's
space wizards or perhaps Borgs) can't possibly go about claiming that
they're smarter than you or myself, while at the same time not fore
knowing of the direct carnage inflicted by their actions and/or
inactions, or from the actions of those they openly and knowingly
support.
Unlike those seemingly opposing the honest future of mankind, I'm
looking for intellectual resources, for the honest if not critical
review and thereby best application of what's possible, within the
limits of existing technology and limited resources, while all others
opposing such functionality as apparent nonsense, and of otherwise
opposing just about everything under the sun (especially of anything
that's not their idea), have been siding with their skewed sense or
allusions of history, as well as their skewed science and skewed
physics, where this has sort of become the "proof positive" that I've
uncovered the holy grail of yet another lingering pro NSA/DoD cesspool
of our cold-war "status quo" mentality, of which our NASA intends to
cloak on behalf of until hell freezes over. Unfortunately, with all of
this ongoing global warming build, hell simply isn't ever going to
freeze, it's only going to get hotter.
I'll suppose, it's covertly possible that by creating a legacy of
multi-trillion dollar debts, for all the world's great grand children
of the future is perfectly OK by someone others standards, as equally
choked down with all the excessive CO2 and subsequently the entire
world suffering from serious global warming is somehow going to become
just the ticket these pro-NASA fools are suggesting is needed. Perhaps
the sooner our global resources are squandered, the sooner their
already rich partners in crime (like those already wealthy cotton
growers that are about to receive another 18 billion dollar per year
subsidy) will inherit the Earth, or of whatever is left of it.
If perchance you're less interested in all the doom and gloom aspects,
but otherwise concerned about what's actually possible, as in humanly
obtainable from the existing talents and resources of today, then this
lunar space elevator page should be of some interest, of what's been
most recently uploaded and updated having to do with tether energy
potentials:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
As an alternative space elevator that I'm opposed to paying for, but
that I'll concur can be accomplished if there's no financial
limitations and there's all the time in the world and continuing
Taliban risk factors are ignored:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm
This following link is featuring the attributes and benefits of the
lunar based SAR receiving module, a page that could always use another
update, as in incorporating some of your expertise:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
There's certainly a great deal more to say, of which I simply can't
seem to say enough, or perhaps I've said way too much already. For
those claiming that I'm the "all knowing" culprit, or the village
idiot from hell, sorry folks, that's hardly the case. As more than
likely than not, I'm somewhat like one of those addaptive corrections
to those funny mirrors at the carnival that you've been paying good
money to be looking at for decades, only seeing a highly distorted
view of reality. Now that I'm offering a relatively flat
(non-distorting) mirror of what's possible and of what's humanly
obtainable, God forbid, perhaps you should actually do something
constructive or meaningful for others.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA 1-253-8576061
http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Jay Windley
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03090...@posting.google.com...
|
| Unlike so many objecting to absolutely anything lunar
No, just to your unfounded and ignorant theories.
| I'd prefer to be discussing the pros and cons and/or
| learning of technology ...
Make up your mind. First you only want to learn as little as necessary to
support (or appear to support) your theories. Now you profess this
wonderful thirst for knowledge. Which is it?
Personally, I believe you're incapable of learning.
| Although, so much of what I'm hearing is of others crying
| over spilt milk, such as over my poor syntax or insufficient
| scientific notations ...
Your notation is largely irrelevant, although a sign of genuine expertise is
the correct use of terms and notation. Your egregious errors are in your
complete lack of understanding of fundamental principles of the physical
world. It's not a matter of missing subscripts. You don't have a head for
science, and you shouldn't try to pretend that you do.
| Since I know for a fact that I've made mistakes and,
| that I'll most likely make a tonne more, that's quite
| different from the perspective of those living a lie ...
Strange how that "lie" I'm supposedly living keeps coinciding with reality
on a daily basis, such as to keep me in Froot Loops and pizza. You seem to
forget that many of us rely on our knowledge of the laws of the universe to
create
And while you make a big show of your fallibility in general, to get you to
admit to any *specific* error is a task far more daunting than manned space
flight, even when the evidence for it is presented in plain language three
or four times consecutively.
| Although, all that I've seen and heard from those opposing
| is essentially their absolute immoral arrogance towards all
| of humanity
Oh, get over yourself. Criticism of your theories hardly consistutes
"absolute immoral arrogance towards all of humanity."
| OOPS, I suppose now I've hurt your feelings. OOPS again, I
| forgot, pro-NASA Borgs probably don't have any true feelings,
| as you're merely being a collective opponent against absolutely
| anything or anyone being the least bit anti-NASA ...
Name-calling. What a withering line of reasoning you offer.
Consider that that concerted opinion against you is because you're
egregiously wrong on many points, and the consensus realizes this.
| In other words, the village idiot method of reverse engineering
| for improving upon the 60 meter mast/boom SAR imaging technology
| is as follows;
[number salad snipped]
| ... circumventing and/or bashing the lunar space elevator
| issues are of the very same Borg like collective that's
| opposing other life NOT as we know it
Oh, heaven forbid it should be on the grounds of scientific principles.
| Oddly, we can manage to send multiple and relatively complex
| interactive probes off to Mars, cost be damned
Um, what part of "faster, better, cheaper" was unclear?
| Probes and transponders can be and have in fact been engineered
| and constructed to survive the truly horrific space irradiation
| levels, that would otherwise adversely impact if not kill off any
| astronaut.
You know nothing about space radiation, although for some reason you like to
talk about it. Your errors have been explained to you multiple times by
multiple people. For some reason you cling to your "village idiot" theory,
although this would be a good time for you to acknowledge having committed
one of the egregious errors you admit to in the abstract.
| There's certainly a great deal more to say, of which I simply can't
| seem to say enough, or perhaps I've said way too much already.
Yes, you should have stopped several months ago.
| view of reality. Now that I'm offering a relatively flat
| (non-distorting) mirror of what's possible and of what's humanly
| obtainable, God forbid, perhaps you should actually do something
| constructive or meaningful for others.
That's what I do. I'm an engineer. I make people's lives better by using
the laws of the universe to increase humankind's collective ability and
alleviate its collective and individual discomforts.
What, exactly, do you do aside from parading around your colossal lack of
comprehension?
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Brad Guth
that anyone can pin down. Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing, though claims manned
space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in the park at perhaps 10
mrem/day, at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
his fairy tail Apollo stories.
You'll notice how wizard Jay says a great deal, but there's never any
specifics, absolutely nothing that's not thoroughly moderated to death
by NASA and published in the Apollo Bible.
"I'm an engineer. I make people's lives better by using the laws of
the universe to increase humankind's collective ability and alleviate
its collective and individual discomforts."
That's certainly a good side of wizard Jay, though odd, as for some
reason those same laws of physics don't seem to apply to the likes of
our moon or Venus. Such as where lighting index isn't relevant,
radiation exposures are whatever Jay wants them to be, Kodak film
doesn't even measurably fog after two weeks exposure, interplanetary
laser communications isn't possible, other life isn't possible, a
lunar SAR receiving aperture isn't possible and, I'll just bet
anything that a lunar space elevator isn't remotely possible either.
Thankfully wizard Jay certainly isn't alone, as his Borg collective is
sort of alive throughout the internet. This latest offering of mine is
merely regarding the honest fact that space elevators are not equal,
not even politically correct, though being dead right seems about all
that matters, especially if you're the least bit against wasting time
and lots of money.
Being the least bit right about a lunar Space Elevator is almost as
bad off as being 10% right about there being Other Life on Venus.
Thank God I'm not Cathar, as then I'd be literally dead right (that
black smoke was actually the Pope roasting another Cathar, white smoke
was a Jewish flavor) and, that's almost as testy as holding out
invisible WMDs.
Check out this Borg group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator/
I've tried to introduce some space elevator alternatives, such as an
affordable and doable lunar SE as opposed to the "some day" in the way
off future and "cost+" Earth SE. Yet all I've received is pure
bashings, of receiving no worthwhile specifics nor "what if"
considerations whatsoever, as though there's none other than an Earth
SE irregardless of the complexities, cost or carnage.
Obvisously, since being complex and spendier than all of wholy hell is
of absolutely no moral consideration whatsoever for this space
elevator group, that's when I thought that all bets were off, as in
anything was fair game for consideration, including my questioning of
their ulterior motives.
Obviously since their honest motives aren't making any sense, that
only leaves ulterior motives, or utter stupidity and, they've clearly
indicated that they already know just about everything there is to
know, so that supposedly rules out stupidity but perhaps not
arrogance.
I'm thinking, if instead of learning and sharing various technical SE
expertise, and of insuring credits wherever credit is due, if instead
bashing ring of fire is the true name of this game, then perhaps I'll
just gather up some of that still warm and fuzzy flak and return it
with love.
Of course, if someone actually wanted to express anything meaningful
towards doing a lunar SE, or of what could be associated with it or
not, as that would actually be somewhat of what I thought these
talented SE folks would have to offer. My mistake, how absolutely
foolish of myself to even think that there's anyone that actually
gives a tinkers damn about much of anything that's not benefiting
their agenda, much less humanity.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d28ff28.03090...@posting.google.com...
> Once again, there's absolutely nothing coming from wizard Jay Windley
> that anyone can pin down. Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
> that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing, though claims manned
> space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in the park at perhaps 10
> mrem/day, at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
> his fairy tail Apollo stories.
The word is tale. Mr. Min, you should be ashamed of yourself.
David A. Smith
Brad Guth
Thanks so much. That's certainly the least of my problems, although of
those opposing, they do like to poke fun of me or of anyone objecting
to their correctly spelled agendas.
Here's a little something other that I've recently posted, probably
loaded down with more poor grammar and hard to understand syntax. BTW;
I'm only ashamed of being associated with the cold-war likes of our
NASA, as far too many folks have paid the ultimate price and, for what
I'm not sure anymore.
TRACE-II instead of any stinking space elevator or of terriforming
Venus.
Instead of our badly terraforming good old Venus, or even opting for a
spendy lunar or more so Earth se; how about our configuring and
shipping off an affordable and relatively compact TRACE-II, one that's
outfitted with a few of those solid state 5W lasers and of numerous
single channel photon detectors, being about 1/10th the Magellan
investment and of not 1% the operational overhead. All and all, that's
not even postage for the paper work related to accomplishing any space
elevator, much less terraforming Venus.
Station keeping the TRACE-II at Venus L2 (VL2) is not hardly even
rocket science anymore. Utilizing this instrument as a relay platform
for various communications while the optical features of TRACE-II goes
about imaging the visible portion of the sun and of its coronasphere
is hardly an insignificant opportunity. The CCD camera and associated
optics and filters are well proven, the resolution and range of scan
speed is way more than sufficient, it's entirely proven and best of
all, the original TRACE is about due for a replacement. So, the entire
TRACE team will not have to be retired and, this new vantage point of
VL2 is nearly ideal for accomplish certain tasks that the original
instrument was not only handicapped but much further away. The
TRACE-II could have an even more capable CCD of perhaps 4 times as
much resolution plus being upon average 0.275 AU closer to their
target. That at least 8 fold improvement in solar imaging, not to
mention the other aspects of what TRACE-II could accomplish for
essentially pennies on the dollar.
So, why waste all the time and billions if not trillions trying to
goto places ill suited for humans, especially of such frozen and
irradiated to death locations such as Mars, or of otherwise putting
nearly all of our eggs into one of those horrific space elevators,
when we can simply send off a few complex binary message packets
(local laser area code no less) such as asking "what's up?" or perhaps
"how hot is it?", then monitor for their reply, seems like a whole lot
more bang for the buck or euro and best of all, of not one roasted
astronaut.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/laser-com.htm
Less spendier yet will be of accomplishing the Moon-SAR imaging but,
that's not nearly as much fun as accomplishing any two-way
interplanetary call (I'm actually looking forward to my first email
smut from Venus): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
The lunar space elevator and our NExT CM/ISS perhaps isn't 1% of
accomplishing any Earth based space elevator, but that lunar SE
prospect is still talking in terms of tens of billions. That's
certainly far more than I've got.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
If I can save but one unnecessary roasting of another astronaut, or
save our humanity from needlessly blowing billions and/or trillions
upon humanly unobtainable goals, somehow I think that's one better off
than most all others have accomplished. If that effort turns out to
include the confirmation of "other life NOT as we know it" existing or
even the remains thereof on Venus, unlike certain individuals I've
known, I'll share big-time with specifics, as well as with the levels
of support for others honestly trying to make a difference in spite of
the status quo.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
Jay Windley
| Jay Windley that anyone can pin down.
Or rather, the exact specifics you think I'm supposed to provide aren't
there. I've given you plenty of useful information. You just aren't
interested in it because in order to grasp it you'd have to first admit that
you were gravely wrong. And you're not about to do that. You can't come to
terms with just how wrong you are.
You throw out words such as "secondary radiation" and "solar minimum"
without understanding what they mean and how they fit into a big picture.
Until you understand the basic, qualitative aspects of cislunar radiation
then nothing that anyone can say will make sense to you.
| Supposedly wizard Jay is a radiation expert
| that can't seem to actually prove a damn thing
You can't seem to think outside the context of your own theory, and until
you are able to do that -- and thereby see all that's wrong with it -- you
won't be able to appreciate anything I say.
I have stated this on numerous occaions. I have stated in great detail why
your model doesn't work. You have simply ignored those statements and
continue banging me over the head with your science fiction. You accept
only the possibility that your theory might be wrong in what numbers are
"plugged" into it. You won't consider the possibility that it's
conceptually invalid.
First, you take a cumulative figure composed of several widely-separated,
discrete events and then try to amortize that over the measurement period as
a steady rate. This is statistically invalid.
Second, you neglect the qualitative differences between long-term missions
and short missions and how the statistical analysis of risk can be vastly
different between them.
Third, you try to directly compare the radiation environments from two
radically different zones in cislunar space. You attribute the difference
to some hypothetical conspiracy to conceal the truth instead of to the
qualitative differences in the environments themselves.
Until you are willing to correct those egregious errors in your theory,
there's no point in trying to talk about explicit exposures in concrete
units.
| though claims manned space travel is a piece of cake, a walk in
| the park at perhaps 10 mrem/day
I have made absolutely no such claim.
| at least that's what it would have to be if we believe in
| his fairy tail Apollo stories.
No. I have explained the error in this estimate you keep making and trying
to pin on me. You are deriving a supposed continuous exposure rate where it
is not statistically justified. I have explained this already in great
detail by means of direct expostulation, analogy, and comparison. You have
not even commented on any of it.
| You'll notice how wizard Jay says a great deal, but there's never any
| specifics, absolutely nothing that's not thoroughly moderated to death
| by NASA and published in the Apollo Bible.
First, I have explained on numerous occasions why there are no specific
figures in my arguments: there is no figure I could give, which will make
your theory work. I'm trying to correct the QUALITATIVE errors in your
theory first, because until that's done you'll simply reject -- as you
have -- any specific figures I might give.
You've pre-rejected, based on your anti-NASA paranoia, any specific figures
I might wish to use. You've also demonstrated an inability to understand
when specific information can be applied to different situations.
Now when you're willing to discuss what's ACTUALLY wrong with your theory,
then perhaps you can have a meaningful conversation with me.
| That's certainly a good side of wizard Jay
Have you seen any other side? You obviously postulate some "Borg" side
which you claim undermines anything I might say. But that's simply your
stock answer to anything you don't want to deal with. Anyone who disagrees
with Brad Guth, whether or not he has a good reason, is a "Borg". Because
Brad Guth can't possibly be wrong.
| though odd, as for some reason those same laws of physics
| don't seem to apply to the likes of our moon or Venus.
Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the FACTS bear out the physics
expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories do not fit the facts, and
so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that they "must" be bogus.
| Such as where lighting index isn't relevant
I've never made this claim, and I've asked you fully a dozen times to
provide data to support whatever point you're trying to make.
| radiation exposures are whatever Jay wants them to be
I've never made this claim. I simply point out that your model -- which
demands constant high levels of radiation -- is not consistent with how
cislunar radiation behaves and is not consistent with acquired fact.
| Kodak film doesn't even measurably fog after two weeks
| exposure
Funny how the Russians' film didn't fog either. Again, the facts contradict
your theory. And we've shown you the flaws in your theory -- why it's
wrong. But you insist that the unfogged film is evidence of conspiracy to
conceal the truth, not evidence that your theory needs revision. Whatever
doesn't fit your theory is "thrown out" as "obviously" fabricated data.
| Thankfully wizard Jay certainly isn't alone, as his Borg
| collective is sort of alive throughout the internet.
Yes, and strange how this "Borg collective" is the scientists and engineers
actually responsible for building things.
Remove my name and web address at once from your web site. You have
misrpresented my statements there.
Sander Vesik
>
> Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the FACTS bear out the physics
> expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories do not fit the facts, and
> so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that they "must" be bogus.
pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back in time by
several decades? 8-P
IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe in history?
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Jay Windley
"Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:10629872...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
|
| pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back
| in time by several decades? 8-P
I'm focusing on a particular couple of Brad's claims, not his entire
catalogue. I'm an expert in Apollo, and Brad has made specific claims
regarding Apollo.
| IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe
| in history?
For Brad's sake, no. For the sake of readers who wonder if there are
reasonable answers to Brad's statements, yes.
jmfb...@aol.com
Sander Vesik <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>In sci.space.policy Jay Windley <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, they do. If you look carefully, the
>>FACTS bear out the physics
>> expressed in the pro-Apollo camp. Your theories
>>do not fit the facts, and
>> so you argue that the facts are then suspect -- that
>>they "must" be bogus.
>
>pro-Apollo camp? Did I miss something or get transported back in time by
>several decades? 8-P
Nah. Millenia.
>
>IS it really worth arguing with somebody who doesn't believe in history?
Yes. Think of the lurkers who may not know.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Brad Guth
When you or anyone figures out how the hell those nice astronauts took
such a walk in the park at a mere 10 mrem/day of open space travel,
that's not even for being within the Van Allen zone of death nor of
their strolling about on a lunar surface simply loaded with secondary
radiation issues, not to mention having to deal with all of that bone
dry clumping moon dirt that was so oddly reflective, as then I'll post
your specifics right on my INDEX and/or UPDATE page and, as Wizard Jay
will gladly inform you, I'll post credits, or of any web page link
you've got to offer.
For the moment, as this topic implies, I'm focused somewhat upon what
the likes of good elevator robotics (and/or TRACE-II) can accommodate,
of what a lunar space elevator can achieve for pennies on the dollar,
especially as compared to our doing any Earth SE. As usual, God
forbid, I'll not expect to be receiving any worth of expertise nor
specifics from the pro-Apollo camp.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of LIFE on Venus
LSE UPDATES: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
Jay Windley
|
| When you or anyone figures out how the hell those nice
| astronauts took such a walk in the park at a mere 10 mrem/day
| of open space travel
Well, I figured out the problem in your estimates. And I tried several
times to tell you what it was. But because I started out my explanation
with, "Brad Guth is wrong..." you probably didn't see it. You won't admit
any specific error.
| that's not even for being within the Van Allen zone of death
Your computations indicate that you don't even know where the Van Allen
belts are. And you never admit any specific error.
| nor of their strolling about on a lunar surface simply loaded
| with secondary radiation issues
You don't know what secondary radiation is, or how strong it would be.
| having to deal with all of that bone dry clumping moon dirt
We tried to explain that to you. You won't admit any specific error.
| ...that was so oddly reflective
So far you haven't tried to explain this.
| as Wizard Jay will gladly inform you, I'll post credits, or of any
| web page link you've got to offer.
No. You'll completely restate what someone has said, sprinkling it
liberally with your own delusions and interpolations, and then post the
result as if it were something the original person has said. And then
you'll ignore every subsequent effort of that person to get you to quote him
accurately, or at worst to remove the butchered attributions altogether.
You'll accuse your supplier of "revisionism" and then insult him for it.
You're psychotic.
Brad Guth
imposing the NASA bible and then only of those pages that fulfill your
needs. So what if I'm doing the same thing. If the Van Allen zone of
death is not what's officially posted as 1,000 km out to 70,000 km,
then so be it, as it's still loaded with radiation that'll likely
degrade most any CNT ESE tether, not to mention chopping up some of
your DNA/RNA as you're passing through.
If in fact those multi-hundred billion dollar CNT tethers are
unaffected by the Van Allen zone of death (little or no short or long
term degrade from the rather massive radiation plus solar maximum flux
of just about everything nasty you can think of), unaffected by
whatever atmospheric jet-streams, able to dodge those thousand or so
satellites and of another hundred thousand or so smaller debris items
and, unaffected by whatever a few GJ worth of lighting strikes might
induce and, above all else there's no Taliban running amuck, then by
all means we'll be a whole lot safer off using the multi-trillion
dollar ESE "starlight Express", though financially broke. So, I'm
hoping their ticket to ride is going to be really cheap.
Even considering upon the 5% lunar orbit variance, and thereby dynamic
need of interactively compensating upon the LSE CM/ISS (ME/L-1.1),
accommodating a lunar SE is a relative snap as compared to any ESE.
Try to think "gravity-well", then think of utilizing opposing
gravity-wells, that for the most part remain quite nicely and rather
uniquely aligned with one another.
This LSE is not even a remote option for accommodating any sort of ESE
formula.
BTW: I've posted upon this topic before, though I've added yet another
one of those testy LSE pages, again having something positive to do
with utilizing that damn moon of ours, this time more specifically on
the topic of the LSE lunar tether GPa, where I'm seriously wondering
if any LSE tether even needs 3 GPa. There's also something of tether
dipole energy worth and of the required flywheel storage for said
energy.
Quite unlike what wizard Jay Windley has to say, as I learn more
believable specifics from others (hopefully smarter than myself), I'll
certainly make those corrections and share in whatever the outcome. If
Jay's assumptions about the Van Allen zone turns out being a
non-radioactive "walk in the park", then that too I'll post along with
giving him all the credit for such new knowledge that so far seems to
allude reality, though what do I know?
BTW again; unlike blessed wizards like Jay Windley, I make all sorts
of mistakes, thus I'm re-editing as I go along, obviously trying to
accomplish what supposedly others that already know everything there
is to know, should have accomplished and/or shared with the rest of us
village idiots decades ago.
Due to the orchestrated email trashing that my research has attracted,
if you'd like to convey something outside of this post, goto the
following public email link (gv-bradguth-email-01) and post whatever,
or simply call: 1-253-8576061 or fax: 1-253-8575318
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gv-bradguth-email-01&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5d28ff28.0309220058.6cbb3553%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / Discovery of the other LIFE on Venus
Other LSE UPDATES: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-gpa.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-se-flywheels.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-elevator.htm
Jay Windley
"Brad Guth" <ieis...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:9f50a7c5.03092...@posting.google.com...
|
| Quite unlike what wizard Jay Windley has to say, as I learn more
| believable specifics from others (hopefully smarter than myself)
Your criteria for believability are simply whatever corresponds with what
you already believe. Many very intelligent people have tried to correct
your errors. You simply pick and choose from their statements --
fabricating anything you need along the way -- what you want to believe.
Anyone who disagrees with you, on whatever grounds, you call a "NASA Borg".
| If Jay's assumptions about the Van Allen zone turns out being a
| non-radioactive "walk in the park"
I have made no statement to the effect that the Van Allen belts are a "walk
in the park". My objection to your "Van Allen zone of death" argument does
not argue the opposite extreme. It simply corrects your mistakes.
| BTW again; unlike blessed wizards like Jay Windley, I make
| all sorts of mistakes
You claim I am infallible; I don't.
Further, you refuse to admit any *specific* error, even when presented with
clear factual evidence to the contrary.
If you are not interested in addressing my specific objections then please
stop using my name in your posts. I am not your whipping boy. And kindly
remove my name from your web pages; I have not expressed the ideas nor made
the statements that you attribute to me there.
Brad Guth
corrections over all sorts of unintentional errors. If and when I
discover my mistakes, and/or can find at least a couple of believable
folks telling me what's what, as then I've altered my outlook, and
even updated my research to reflect upon such.
It's true that, I'll lean heavily toward my side of the equation, as
for what's the point of not doing that?
Although, more offten than not, I've taken their warm and fuzzy flak,
only to discover long standing ullterior motives getting involved.
Like all the flak I've recently taken over the lunar space elevator
(LSE-CM/ISS): http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
Regards, Brad Guth IEIS~GASA / discovery of other LIFE on Venus
Alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com phone: 1-253-8576061
Jay Windley
|
| Unlike what the likes of wizard Jay has to say, I do
| infact make corrections over all sorts of unintentional
| errors.
What about the *intentional* misrepresentations? What does it take to get
you to correct those?
| can find at least a couple of believable folks telling
| me what's what
How do you define "believable"?
Would you consider proving to us that you are indeed amenable to suggestion
by addressing in a factual way the objections I raised to your
characterization of cislunar radiation?
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <ieis...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:9f50a7c5.03102...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | Unlike what the likes of wizard Jay has to say, I do
> | infact make corrections over all sorts of unintentional
> | errors.
>
> What about the *intentional* misrepresentations? What does it take to get
> you to correct those?
>
> | can find at least a couple of believable folks telling
> | me what's what
>
> How do you define "believable"?
>
> Would you consider proving to us that you are indeed amenable to suggestion
> by addressing in a factual way the objections I raised to your
> characterization of cislunar radiation?
Unfortunately, our government, your government, misrepresents all
sorts of things all the time, including those directly responsible for
taking human life without just cause, yet you expect my limited
resources to outperform the grander of those NASA infomercials.
As to secondary lunar radiation (solar illuminated surface), I have no
specifics that you can't outperform. All that I've learned from others
is that nearly all substances, including lunar basalt dirt, will react
to the gauntlet of solar influx, thereby the actual daylight lunar
surface is in fact somewhat worse off than being in orbit about the
moon. The more surrounding density, the worse off the secondary
radiation, of which is traveling in every which way but lose.
I'm assuming that residing behind a sufficiently large rock, that
being in the shade at -250°F, is less solar irradiated, and thereby
offering less secondary, though that had better be a very large rock.
Lunar surface by earthshine should be considerably less affected,
though well illuminated.
Speaking of other illumination issues:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
I define "believable" as in the eye of the beholder, thus I can't
prove onto the likes of yourself any more than you can onto me, though
if two or more independent souls are somewhat saying the same thing, I
tend to follow their lead, at least until something doesn't click.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA / the discovery of other LIFE on Venus
My alternate URL: http://guthvenus.tripod.com and phone: 1-253-8576061
Jay Windley
| all sorts of things all the time
I am not interested in what someone else has allegedly misrepresented.
What responsibility do you plan to take for what *you* have deliberately
misrepresented?
| All that I've learned from others is that nearly all
| substances, including lunar basalt dirt, will react to
| the gauntlet of solar influx...
Agreed, but to what extent? Can you quantify any aspect of your claims
regarding secondary radiation? You maintain that secondary radiation
emitted by the lunar surface material in response to the solar ambient is a
significant source of radiation for short-term human sojourns on the moon.
Prove it.
| I define "believable" as in the eye of the beholder
Yes. You see what you want to see, and nothing else.
Carl R. Osterwald
<ieis...@juno.com> wrote:
> As to secondary lunar radiation (solar illuminated surface), I have no
> specifics that you can't outperform. All that I've learned from others
> is that nearly all substances, including lunar basalt dirt, will react
> to the gauntlet of solar influx, thereby the actual daylight lunar
> surface is in fact somewhat worse off than being in orbit about the
> moon. The more surrounding density, the worse off the secondary
> radiation, of which is traveling in every which way but lose.
Trying to win another kook award?
-=-=-=-=-
Martha H Adams
better; but in all I've seen (without reading the original refereed
papers) I haven't seen any discussion about a simple basic. Lifting a
mass out of a gravity well takes energy. The lifted object acquires
potential energy (of height) and kinetic energy (of motion). The
liftee acquires that energy from the lifter.
Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
Cheers -- Martha Adams
Henry Spencer
Martha H Adams <m...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>...I haven't seen any discussion about a simple basic. Lifting a
>mass out of a gravity well takes energy...
>Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
The leading proposal at the moment uses laser power beaming. The laser
and optics needed are nothing remarkable, and ordinary solar arrays can
convert laser light (at a well-chosen wavelength) to electricity with
efficiency of 50%+.
Neither running a power cable up the elevator cable, nor making the
climbers self-powered, works very well on close inspection.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | he...@spsystems.net
pete
` In article <bnbop5$4uk$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
` Martha H Adams <m...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
` >...I haven't seen any discussion about a simple basic. Lifting a
` >mass out of a gravity well takes energy...
` >Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
` The leading proposal at the moment uses laser power beaming. The laser
` and optics needed are nothing remarkable, and ordinary solar arrays can
` convert laser light (at a well-chosen wavelength) to electricity with
` efficiency of 50%+.
` Neither running a power cable up the elevator cable, nor making the
` climbers self-powered, works very well on close inspection.
To expand on this a little...
The nice feature of tethers is that the energy deficit can be made
up slowly, over time, and you don't have to pay the energy penalties
of rockets where you have to expend propellant energy to lift
propellant. The only energy deficit you develop is the orbital
energy of your payload, which you rob from the "lifter" - the
orbiting anchor point for the tether - and that deficit need only
be replenished at such a rate that subsequent payloads don't
degrade the anchor's orbit to a point where it is vulnerable
to atmospheric decay and reentry. So you could even have a
payload carry up its own rocket propellant energy boost, and
you would still be ahead of a rocket launch, as the amount of
propellant you need to lift is only enough to boost the payload
to orbital velocity, not the quantity required to hold the remaining
propellant up against gravity during a launch. But the release
from the time constraint (getting out of holding up propellant
against gravity for as short a time as possible) means you can
look at other mechanisms which add energy slowly. You basically
have until the next payload starts to be lifted to regain your
energy, so depending on payload mass and frequency, you can look
at using solar arrays, beamed power or anything else you might
be clever enough to come up with.
--
==========================================================================
vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
Richard Schumacher
Henry Spencer wrote:
Lasers on the ground, at the far end, or both? Naively, both seems most
sensible, for redundancy if nothing else.
Henry Spencer
Richard Schumacher <no-...@thank-you.com> wrote:
>> The leading proposal at the moment uses laser power beaming. The laser
>> and optics needed are nothing remarkable, and ordinary solar arrays can
>> convert laser light (at a well-chosen wavelength) to electricity with
>> efficiency of 50%+.
>
>sensible, for redundancy if nothing else.
Lasers on the ground. Ground lasers are far more reliable because they
can be fixed when they break, they are far cheaper because they don't have
to be lightweight, and the power for them is also far cheaper because you
can just buy it from ConEd.
If you need redundancy, have two sets of them. But you don't really need
redundancy all that badly. If the beam stops, the climbers just coast to
a halt and apply brakes to stay put. You fix the laser and start things
up again.
Richard Schumacher
Henry Spencer wrote:
I was thinking of redundancy in the receiving photovoltaic arrays, but for the
reasons you mention that's better done by putting two independent sets on the
underside of the climber.
E.R.
There will be redundancy in the laser gangs. Example, there will be
more than one SE, and it will cost _less_ to locate gangs of lasers
in, say, the Mojave than to operate the same gang aboard the anchor
platform. Dispersed lasers will be able to operate despite local
weather problems.
The problem with letting the climbers just _sit_ and wait for the
laser to come back online is that you are loosing money when you do
that.
You don't need redundancy in the photovoltaic arrays - there isn't
much that can go wrong with an array; it's not worth the
complexity/cost or cargo capacity penalty.
An exception would be the maintenance climbers or the climbers that
finish the initial construction; the penalty for work stoppage almost
seems to dictate as much redunancy as possible.
Worth noting is that the recovery strategies for a failed climber are
fairly simple.
* Allow the climber to back down the ribbon the anchor.
* Push the climber _up_ with a follow-on climber
* Pull the climber _down_ with a follow-on climber - perhaps one kept
at the anchor for that reason.
* Past GEO you can let the climber coast to the far end, where it
becomes part of the counter-weight.
~er
Vincent Cate
> In article <bnbop5$4uk$1...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Martha H Adams <m...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> >...I haven't seen any discussion about a simple basic. Lifting a
> >mass out of a gravity well takes energy...
> >Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
>
> The leading proposal at the moment uses laser power beaming. The laser
> and optics needed are nothing remarkable, and ordinary solar arrays can
> convert laser light (at a well-chosen wavelength) to electricity with
> efficiency of 50%+.
What sort of watts/Kg numbers can you get for your solar arrays this way?
Like are we talking 4 times better than from sunlight? Maybe 400 watts/Kg
instead of 100 watts/Kg? Or how good? Does it not run into the same
kinds of limits that just having mirrors reflect sunlight onto your
array does? (I can see a bit higher because more efficiency means
less heat per watt) Any recommended books for reading up on laser
power beaming?
-- Vince
Keith F. Lynch
> Lasers on the ground. Ground lasers are far more reliable because
> they can be fixed when they break, they are far cheaper because they
> don't have to be lightweight, and the power for them is also far
> cheaper because you can just buy it from ConEd.
What do you do when it gets cloudy?
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
E.R.
> Henry Spencer <he...@spsystems.net> wrote:
> > Lasers on the ground. Ground lasers are far more reliable because
> > they can be fixed when they break, they are far cheaper because they
> > don't have to be lightweight, and the power for them is also far
> > cheaper because you can just buy it from ConEd.
>
> What do you do when it gets cloudy?
Use a laser (or a battary of them) sited where it's _not_ cloudy. If
the anchor is in the pacific, on the equator, spot a battary in the
Mojave. Spot another in the Andes. Maybe a Third in the Sonara. And
of course there will be on in or around the anchor to see the climber
off.
As long as you have line of sight to the climber, you can power it
with a laser.
~er
Henry Spencer
Vincent Cate <vi...@offshore.ai> wrote:
>> >Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
>> The leading proposal at the moment uses laser power beaming. The laser
>> and optics needed are nothing remarkable, and ordinary solar arrays can
>> convert laser light (at a well-chosen wavelength) to electricity with
>> efficiency of 50%+.
>
>What sort of watts/Kg numbers can you get for your solar arrays this way?
>Like are we talking 4 times better than from sunlight?
For similar light intensities, double or possibly triple, but not
quadruple. (With one caveat: it may be possible to optimize the cells
for this application, and that has not really been explored.)
The main advantage is that you can match the laser wavelength to the
cells. Much of the loss in solar cells is because the incoming light
spans such a range of wavelengths. The photoelectric mechanism basically
wants to absorb one particular amount of energy per photon. A photon with
more than that wastes the rest as heat; a photon with less than that turns
entirely to heat. (In fact, the best current solar cells actually are
stacks of two or three cells of different types, so each cell has to deal
with a smaller range of wavelengths.) So when you illuminate with
monochromatic light tuned to the cell absorption, efficiency goes way up.
Plus, of course, there is the option to go to a higher intensity, more
watts of light on each square meter. At least a modest amount of that is
probably worthwhile.
>...Any recommended books for reading up on laser power beaming?
Not aware of any good ones at the moment (with the caveat that it's not an
area I keep up with carefully). About the best source is probably the
proceedings (if you can find them) of the biennial International
Conference on Wireless Power Transmission.
Hmm, a couple of years ago Geoff Landis arranged for some of his papers on
the subject to be made available; he posted this:
---------------
The following papers discuss some of the proposed space applications of
laser power beaming:
"Satellite Eclipse Power by Laser Illumination," paper IAF-90-053, 40th
International Astronautics Federation Congress, Dresden, GDR, October
1990. Published in Acta Astronautica , Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 229-233 (1991):
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/lasers/IAF90_053.html
"Laser Beamed Power: Satellite Demonstration Applications," Presented as
paper IAF-92-0600, 43rd IAF Congress, 28 Aug.-5 Sept. 1992, Washington
DC. Also available as NASA CR-190793:
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/lasers/IAF92_0600.html
"Moonbase Night Power by Laser Illumination" published in AIAA Journal
of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 8, No. 1, Jan 1992:
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/lasers/laser_moon.html
"Space Transfer With Ground-Based Laser/Electric Propulsion," paper
AIAA-92-3213, presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 28th Joint Propulsion
Conference, July 6-8 1992, Nashville, TN. Also available as NASA
Technical Memorandum TM-106060:
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/lasers/AIAA92_3213.html
There are a number of more papers with technical details that so far are
only available in print form. There's a bibliography of NASA Lewis work at
http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/psi/DOC/beambib.html
(unfortunately this bibliography hasn't been updated since 1995, but it
has a lot of useful papers).
---------------
E.R.
The Space Elevator Final report to NIAC
The NIAC Phase I Report: The technical result of the initial 6 month study for NASA.
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html
Chapter 4 - Power Beaming
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter4.html
Vincent Cate
> The Space Elevator Final report to NIAC
These guys are talking "54 watt/cm2 power densities". This is
540,000 watts/meter^2. This is a reentry heating type number. I think
the solar cells would ablate in a few seconds. :-) So I think there
is a mistake someplace.
They say they got this from a reference:
D'Amato, F.X., Berak, J.M., and Shuskus, A.J.. 1992. Fabrication and
Test of an Efficient Photovoltaic Cell for Laser Optical Power Transmission.
IEEEPhotonics Technology Letters 4, No. 3: 258.
I don't have this reference and so can not check, but I strongly
suspect it is really supposed to be 0.54 watts/cm^2. This would be better
than 10 times regular sun powered solar cells.
-- Vince
Vincent Cate
> "Space Transfer With Ground-Based Laser/Electric Propulsion," paper
> AIAA-92-3213, presented at the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 28th Joint Propulsion
> Conference, July 6-8 1992, Nashville, TN. Also available as NASA
> Technical Memorandum TM-106060:
> http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/lasers/AIAA92_3213.html
Thanks.
He has:
Laser OTV, Photovoltaic array: 0.7 kg/kWe
This is 1,429 watts/kg. I think this compares to 100 to 140 watts/kg
for sun powered photovoltaic arrays. So it is 10 to 14 times better.
-- Vince
Brad Guth
Not that this next item would have represented any complex scientific
achievement, however, by merely accomplishing a note worthy signal as
that reflected from the lunar surface would have delivered far more
than all other supposed experiments, as accomplishing this from a
purely passive reflection of the visible spectrum could have remained
for decades as nearly an irrefutable proof-positive reminder of our
accomplishments. I say nearly proof positive because, even this degree
of essentially optical/mirror experiment could have been robotically
accomplished, at not 1% the cost of doing such via astronauts and, if
you don't think so, than clearly you're the bigger dumb ass fool, as
well as the true village idiot if there ever was.
Regarding what you and I can and/or can not see:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
With a coated mylar mirror of as little as one square meter, this
simple passive device could have been established so as to signal
Earth via reflected sunlight, even earthshine reflected back towards
Earth would have become detectable by most any of the existing
observatories of the day, where as little as 10 m2 of this reflector
would have been detectable by the amateur astronomy eye, and the likes
of 100 m2 should have become down right irritating.
I believe obtaining a 1° focus would have been exceptionally more
intense/m2 than merely direct sunlight, thus without all that much
sophistication, absolutely zero energy, nor as for representative of
hardly any weight nor volume, our crack radiation-proof Apollo
astronauts could have and should have established this simple
reflector. Ever since those infamous Apollo missions, of so many other
low cost and reliable robotics could have been delivered in much the
same manner as we done onto Mars, as well as for delivering and
establishing the VLA/SAR image receiving module without involving
another astronaut.
BTW; regarding that mylar solar reflector issue, that item which could
have easily been situated on the lunar surface, if focused at 1° and
embellished into automatically tracking upon the sun, then if voice
coil enabled, this incredibly simple and extremely low energy
demanding opportunity could have been modulating those solar reflected
photons in a very binary format, as well as offering any number of
analog and/or quantum binary formats of truly impressive baud rates,
thus efficiently transferring to Earth all sorts of seismic,
background acoustical, thermal, radiation data as well as just a
concentrated stream of solar photons ever since the early 70's. The
capabilities of what just 10 m2 focused to 1° was not only doable, but
far less involved as well as less costly than of any moon buggy. In
fact, I'd be surprised if we're talking 1% the cost, and certainly not
even 1% the weight.
Regarding extreme astronomy imaging without optics:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
Delivering robotic scientifics as well as astronomy related items onto
the lunar surface (because the moon is roughly half the gravity of
Mars) is perhaps 1/4th the deployment impact of those we've sent off
to the Mars surface and, obviously anything lunar deployed is not
going to be 1/10th the cost. The enormous benefits of having a few
interactive instruments situated on our moon offers a thousand fold
better return than what anything Mars has to offer humanity (unless
we're simply out and about looking for yet another new infectious
plague that's fueled by radiation-proof as well as freeze-proof Mars
microbes). So, obviously the technology of making whatever lunar
robotic deliveries happen isn't a factor, and at not a tenth the cost
of anything Mars, thereby the investment certainly can't be at fault.
Likewise, achieving a Lunar Space Elevator along with the truly
massive ISS accommodation (LSE-CM/ISS or GMDE for Guth Moon Dirt
Express) is far more obtainable than of any ESE goal, and for pennies
on the dollar of accomplishing this moon dirt depot task within
established technologies and of existing materials that don't have to
go through decades worth of spendy R&D.
Regarding the Lunar Space Elevator and/or moon dirt depot:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
The arguments imposed against the LSE are intentionally bogus, as in
being orchestrated to reflect poorly upon whatever I or anyone else
has to say on behalf of utilizing the moon for any purpose, as well as
focusing upon Venus. Essentially, NASA and their loyal armies of their
internal as well as external Borgs are continuing to lie through their
false teeth, as much as they're playing if not betting the entire farm
upon the utter ignorance of a seriously uneducated and thereby easily
snookered America, using political dog wagging might and cost-plus
infomercial influence whenever and wherever it suits the task of
pulling off their ultimate sting/ruse of the century.
Regarding somewhat testy lunar space radiation (342 rads/hr):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-101.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-102.htm
Sorry folks, if you think you've gotten your moneys worth out of NASA,
as that simply isn't the case whatsoever. In fact, we've all been
snookered, some of which working in tall buildings and onboard certain
airplanes have been snookered to death, and ever since hundreds of
thousands have either lost their jobs and/or taken substantial cuts,
and thereby 10's of thousands have lost nearly everything they owned
prior to 9/11 and, thousands more have been dying on the spot because
you've been further dog-wagged as well as snookered into going after
those invisible WMDs (so far it's Saddam 1, America 0). 9/11 has
impacted America and of American interest not by hundreds of billions,
but by trillions and, there's still no end in sight, only the greater
likelihood of yet another round of retaliations (so far it's Taliban
1, America 0).
America has gotten itself into being just like Israel, whereas we
can't even goto the bathroom without first checking for explosives.
What's next?
Another USS LIBERTY fiasco?
Another USS SHUTTLE whatever fiasco?
More supposedly friendly fire casualties?
Another flight-800 event and subsequent lies?
Another 9/11, this time using fire(s) to fight fire?
A nuclear as well as biological tit for tat with North Korea?
Use of the Boeing/TRW laser cannon as a tool of ethnic cleansing?
Don't look now but, we're getting our butts seriously kicked in Iraq.
The ESE fiasco is simply another tactical dog-wagging diversion that's
so far costing us hundreds of millions and, soon to be costing us
hundreds of billions, whereas eventually trillions by the time there's
a working version capable of transporting humans to/from space without
being burned at the CNT tether/stake for merely visiting the Van Allen
zone of death, that's been known to deliver a raw 40e6 Sv/y, as I've
identified a TRW Space Data report of 2e3 Sv/y if you're shielded
behind at least 2 g/cm2. Of course, you may have to go fish, as those
highly qualified Apollo freaks will inform you about the mere few
mr/hr associated with those 36 hour lunar EVAs.
I certainly don't mean to be the continual messenger of doom and gloom
bad news but, since there's been so little believable nor affordable
alternatives proposed by those intent upon accomplishing their ESE or
bust dastardly deeds, that doesn't leave village idiots like myself
with all that much to work with.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Brad Guth
"Moon is less hot by earthshine, says Brad Guth / IEIS"
Trust me again; this topic becomes somewhat related to our moon, in
that the ESE or bust camp is still hard at their avoiding the truthful
issues, almost exactly like all the Apollo Borgs have been doing for
decades.
From: "David Forslund" <fors...@mail.com>
To: <space-e...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: [space-elevator] Re: Unresolved issues
> What solid state laser are you talking about?
> I know gas lasers have efficiences of 10% and higher,
> but I've never heard of a solid state laser with that
> kind of efficiency.
> Lasers are notoriously inefficient overall. I think
> that is why Brad Edward is pushing for a free-electron
> laser, but I think the efficiency there is also fairly
> poor (wall-plug, I'm talking about, which is all that counts).
> Then you have to convert the light back to mechanical energy.
>
> In my note I was just trying to clarify some energy issues
> that may have been misleading some. It takes energy to climb
> the ribbon and substantial amounts of it.
>
> Dave
> >>>>The savings is in the efficiency of the lift system.
> >>>>Rockets are very inefficient. The overall efficiency
> >>>>isn't just the conversion at the climber but the overall
> >>>>energy required in the laser. Gas lasers can be as high
> >>>>as 10% efficienct, but solid state lasers are closer to
> >>>>1%, without taking into account the conversion from light
> >>>>back into mechanical energy at the climber.
> >>>>So there are big factors to be gained over rockets, but
> >>>>one must take into account the overall efficiency to
> >>>>compare. I've not seen those calculations that take all
> >>>>these factors into account.
As you can clearly see from the above SE tit for tats, there are a few
serious folks trying to make sense out of the ESE fiasco or perhaps
chaos of physics in flux in order to suit whatever the task. These are
not the sorts of village idiots like myself, but truly well educated
sorts of apparently doctorate village idiots that have been doing
their level best at using the known laws of physics, and of applied
sciences that they either know of what works, or have a level of
confidence that such could some day evolve into working, as long as
time and other folk's money are of no consideration.
Lo and behold, without my ever addressing their highly questionable
CNT capability, nor the horrific impact of space radiation, not to
even mention upon whatever space debris is going to influence upon
their spendy CNT ribbon, there are clearly some rather significant
issues of simply addressing the applied energy involved, even if
that's based upon nothing whatsoever going wrong.
I believe our best weapons grade multi-billion dollar Raytheon/TRW gas
laser cannon is going to offer a thermal IR or modified near-IR
spectrum delivery of 33%. Then as for conversion back into energy at
best 33%, which is roughly an 11% overall efficiency. An affordable
commercial grade laser cannon that's delivering near IR (750 nm) might
offer 10%, as well as an affordable (disposable pod) PV receiving
array might equally obtain 10% after the divergence, atmospherics and
targeting jitters are taken fully into account, thus we obtained a
whopping 1% of the initial input energy, thereby 99% of whatever it's
going to take in order to drive whatever pod into space is going to
create surplus heat as well as resulting CO2 for accommodating this
overall task for mother Earth.
Of course, the operational cost of just the necessary multi-gas laser,
as well as other spendy gas-laser elements needed for spectrum peaking
as well as cooling could be as much as $1000/minute on top of the
electrical resource demands. So folks, the efficiency of energy
delivery must also be connected to the cost of fueling that original
energy source that must obviously include substantial energies for all
of their facility/infrastructure demands, of which all toll might
become $10,000/minute, of which computes into 14.4 million hard earned
bucks per day, of which if it's taking 7 days to reach GSO will only
take 101 million dollars per one-way pod delivery of perhaps 10
tonnes, or roughly $4580/pound.
That $4580/pound is not even the least bit inclusive of whatever the
return path constitutes, nor of the SE installation/infrastructure or
of the transport pod investments, nor of the multiple "what ifs"
associated with servicing as well as defending the CNT tether itself
from whatever space born debris or Taliban. Then there's the logistics
of where this ESE will have to be located, and of those numerous
international permissions and of a whole serious bunch of 24/7 surface
as well as ABL defences employed, whether or not the ESE is actively
doing anything or not. In other words, this $4580/pound is merely for
the gas in the tank, not even for the car, nor of its garage, the
depreciation/interest and insurance, nor having to pay for any of the
ESE itself, so that the 10 cents per mile isn't 10% of what the real
cost is and, guess what else? The cost of said gas is seriously going
from $2/gallon to more than $20/gallon by 2054.
The true all inclusive ESE delivery cost is more likely greater than
conventional rocket methods. As the cost of nearly all things goes up,
competitive rocket delivery has been coming down, such as China can
deliver tonnage at not 1% the NASA price tag and, even most others
such as ESA and especially India are achieving their deliveries at not
more than 10% of anything shuttle launched.
Space/lunar raditation:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-101.htm
and
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-102.htm
Skirting the truthful "Space Radiation" impact issues is simply
another typical ruse these ESE folks are capable of accommodating,
doing so at all cost to humanity. By avoiding any acknowledgment of
space radiation being an issue, this topic alone tells me that these
ESE folks are on a dog wagging mission of distracting others from
otherwise discovering and then understanding the truths.
1) The truth about NASA, about their cloak and dagger boss NSA/DoD
which now has their newest puppet of DHS to abide by, is so involved
with their ongoing cold-war agendas that there's simply no time nor
place for the truth to leak out. So, its been infomercials on steroids
in order to sustain the snookering of America and of as much of the
world as possible, along with all the necessary skewed physics and all
of that backed up with whatever it takes in skewed history to boot.
2) The truth about our moon being so TBI worthy (342 rads/hr); so much
so that there's simply no possible way our astronauts could have spent
any significant amount of surface time without serious complications
and/or death, as this is no lie, it's simply physics 101 of what a
fully solar illuminated lunar surface has to offer.
3) The truth about our lack of understanding planets like Venus;
having more natural energy than you can shake a flaming stick at, as
well as an atmosphere that's better off at shielding the Venus surface
from solar radiation than Earth accommodates along with its surround
of the Van Allen zone of death. In other words, it does one little
good being sufficiently cool, such as on Mars, if you're so thoroughly
irradiated dead as a door nail. In that respect, Venus isn't even
nearly as marginal as Earth, especially of the Venus season of
nighttime is truly quite biologically safe, in spite of it being so
hot and nasty.
4) The truth about the Mars surface; besides being frozen solid most
of the time, its TBI impact isn't sufficiently better off than our
moon, especially since the required surface survival timeline of any
expedition must be tolerated in terms of months if not years worth
before returning home in a body bag.
5) The truth(s) about what we should and could have been robotically
accomplishing with our moon; such as utilized for the ultimate VLA/SAR
imaging receiving platform at a fraction of a percentage of what Earth
based and/or satellite based imaging can accommodate, where this level
of avoidance has now become a little more than another obviously
overlooked opportunity. As even for Earth sciences, our moon is simply
invaluable if only limited robotic instruments were deployed, yet we
have seen nothing whatsoever because ???????
6) Assuming that other life NOT as we know it isn't nearly as pathetic
nor as inapt as Earth humans, and there's ample energy resources just
about wherever you'd care to look, just how incompetent if not insane
would any person or lizard folk have to become in order to ignore all
of their alternatives of otherwise surviving in spite of whatever
greenhouse environment, of which may have taken at least 4200 years
worth of geological as well as biological evolution in order to settle
in. As well as for the nuance and/or embarrassment of being situated
right next door to the most incompetent and totally arrogant as well
as bigoted inhabited planet in the entire universe.
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Brad Guth
> > Lasers on the ground. Ground lasers are far more reliable because
> > they can be fixed when they break, they are far cheaper because they
> > don't have to be lightweight, and the power for them is also far
> > cheaper because you can just buy it from ConEd.
>
> What do you do when it gets cloudy?
At perhaps as little as $10,000/minute
We could keep the likes of one the Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL aloft
and firing away, with fuel and laser gas supplies delivered by other
air freighters with the necessary modifications for in route transfers
of beer and pizza.
First of all, due to those testy Taliban still running amuck, we'll
need those ABLs just for defending the tether, as well as for fending
off whatever space debris by vaporising such prior to striking the
ribbon.
Of course, if we had the LSE-CM/ISS established along with its SBL of
100 GW laser cannon of a 0.5 milliradian focus capability, that would
certainly help to resolve any threat. Could even diverge that beam to
open up those clouds, or from time to time the LSE-CM/ISS SBL can
simply power up those ESE pods via from the top down.
If you can imagine a 300 meter sphere of mostly moon dirt and basalt
rock, with a 1e6 m3 ISS interior, and of those two counter-rotating
flywheels storing up energy in order to power everything.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-lobby.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-se-flywheels.htm
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <ieis...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:9f50a7c5.03102...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | Unfortunately, our government, your government, misrepresents
> | all sorts of things all the time
>
> I am not interested in what someone else has allegedly misrepresented.
>
> What responsibility do you plan to take for what *you* have deliberately
> misrepresented?
>
> | All that I've learned from others is that nearly all
> | substances, including lunar basalt dirt, will react to
> | the gauntlet of solar influx...
>
> Agreed, but to what extent? Can you quantify any aspect of your claims
> regarding secondary radiation? You maintain that secondary radiation
> emitted by the lunar surface material in response to the solar ambient is a
> significant source of radiation for short-term human sojourns on the moon.
> Prove it.
>
> | I define "believable" as in the eye of the beholder
>
> Yes. You see what you want to see, and nothing else.
So many others, like yourself, have all the "right stuff", just like
the ESE cults have a half billion of our dollars to promote their
fiasco in spite of what the reality of physics may have to offer. If I
acquired 1% of that amount, I too could hire the sorts of wizards like
yourself, to answer all the questions as wrapped up in some of those
wonderful NOVA produced infomercials that have been accomplished on
behalf of absolutely anything NASA wants pushed into to our village
idiot brains.
Eventually I'll learn of what the specific difference is between a
fully solar illuminated moon and that of earthshine induced secondary
radiation. Unfortunately, as smart as NASA supposedly is and, as
capable as those Apollo astronauts were, we still have no interactive
instrument probe reporting squat back to Earth, upon what the lunar
surface environment actually is.
Perhaps Japan, China, India or any number of ESA lunar probes will
suffice, when and if NASA allows such to ever happen. Until that
transpires, regarding somewhat testy lunar space radiation (342
rads/hr):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-101.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-102.htm
Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com
Jay Windley
|
| If I acquired 1% of that amount, I too could hire the sorts of
| wizards like yourself, to answer all the questions as wrapped up
| blah blah blah
As usual, an essay entirely beside the point.
What responsibility do you plan to take for that which *you* have
deliberately misrepresented?
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <ieis...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:9f50a7c5.0311...@posting.google.com...
> |
> | If I acquired 1% of that amount, I too could hire the sorts of
> | wizards like yourself, to answer all the questions as wrapped up
> | in some of those wonderful NOVA produced infomercials blah blah
> | blah blah blah
>
> As usual, an essay entirely beside the point.
>
> What responsibility do you plan to take for that which *you* have
> deliberately misrepresented?
If I'm wrong with some ulterior intent to defraud the public, then I
should be shot. How about yourself?
In spite of our differences, I'm interested in your comments and/or
technical expertise that could shed some intellectual light upon the
lunar surface environment.
Surly there's some solid data, other than Apollo, as to what the fully
solar illuminated surface is like, where I'd be quite interested to
know about those times of pasive solar activity when the combined
direct solar influx and resulting secondary TBI dosage is below 1
Sv/hr, as well as when that's at the extremes of 100+ Sv/hr such as
during the last week of October 2003.
As equally of interest will become the value of the earthshine
illuminated lunar surface, as to the hourly levels of TBI dosage
imposed as a result of the galactic influx along with the reflected
and/or deflected solar influx via earthshine.
As the final nail in the coffin, I'd like to obtain a basic knowledge
and thereby understanding of what just the lunar nighttime of galactic
influx is all about, especially if we're speaking of the lunar eclips
nighttime where Earth along with its Van Allen zone is obviously
blocking and/or absorbing its fair share of solar influx.
I'm assuming that the amount of secondary radiation is going to be
somewhat directly porportional to the space between the lunar basalt
soil and instrument reading, whereas a distance of -10 cm into lose
soil should be about as activated as it gets, and of the measurement
taken at 1 meter above the surface should be measurably less.
I've come to understand that the lunar substance itself is roughly
twice as radioactive as Earth, whereas Earth substance may represent
0.01 mr/hr, the lunar substance should be somewhat twice that amount,
or 0.02 mr/hr.
Since the lunar core has been established as thermonuclear, there's
bound to be geological vains or pockets of radioactive material worthy
of becoming nuclear grade fuel, if not even weapons grade. So,
obviously there's going to be locations of the lunar soil and/or rock
being more radioactive than not.
This is where I'm trying to be nice, by not being the "all knowing "
wizard of space radiation knowledge, whereas I'll post credits to
those able and willing to suggest and/or specify whatever.
If in fact I'm half right about the enormous values that are inhearent
in establishing the lunar space elevator, and of the subsequent
gravity-well counter mass surrounding the next generation of ISS
(LSE-CM/ISS) as a moon dirt depot at ME-L1.1, then of knowing the
lunar environment is certainly an important attribute, though not
essential for the amounts of basalt I've planned as a safety surround.
The lunar SE lobby itself would be situated below 3 meters of basalt,
thus offering 1024 g/cm2 of shield density as well as thermal
stability, whereas the CM/ISS environment would be surrounded by many
additional meters in order to accommodate the necessary SE
gravity-well mass, while offering a great deal of impact resistance,
as well as for permitting the off-loading of hundreds if not thousands
of tonnes for the purpose of outfitting manned missions to wherever
with a sufficient surround of mass, of which can not be affordably
derived from Earth.
In addition to simply affording a good deal of mass for radiation and
of much needed debris shielding, the raw elements within lunar basalt
could become the fuel for the ION or EMPD engines of the future, then
the basalt itself should be the ultimate fiber, and thereby the ideal
composit of structural material for comprising whatever the task
demands.
I hear it said, that somewhere on Earth there's a fool born every
minute, whereas in America we seem to leave nothing to chance, we
educate them as fools.
Myself included because, I believed that America was all good and
right, sort of warm and fuzzy all over. I had believed that the likes
of the USSR was purely dastardly and just mean spirited with their
sole intent upon ruling America and of the entire world into their
communist ways. I was taught to trust only our government, and to
intrust that the likes of the SEC were doing their jobs, that the FBI,
NSA and CIA were supposedly on our side. I was even taught to being
respectful of all religions and above all, to respect the honesty and
integrity of all charities.
Lo and behold, life is not only unfair, its been a damn lie from the
get go. So, don't be all that surprised if I question your data as for
having ulterior motives, and/or suggest there's an ulterior agenda at
play. It seems there's hardly a topic of scientific interest that's
not been skewed into the nearest toilet by social/political agendas,
and that includes those laws of physics when folks utilize such as
working just fine and dandy upon supporting their agenda, while
denying those very same laws from supporting the competition. As
that's somewhat like how we knew all along about the French and
British agenda and of their accomplishments of intentionally downing
the Russian SST, clearly as to remove the competition at all cost,
just like we've known of the crimes of the 6-Day war was specifically
why the USS LIBERTY was nearly destroyed along with killing 39 of our
folks (in that case the hand that was feeding got seriously bit). The
current Pope knowing of how his church specifically exterminated
Cathars and of anyone associated for absolutely no moral justification
is simply more icing on the cake.
I could go back and forward in time if that's the sort of tit for tats
you're looking for, or perhaps we could focus our limited resources
upon obtainable goals that'll benefit all of humanity.
Jay Windley
| > What responsibility do you plan to take for that which *you* have
| > deliberately misrepresented?
|
| If I'm wrong with some ulterior intent to defraud the public, then I
| should be shot. How about yourself?
I'm not speaking in the hypothetical, nor am I interested in your
qualifications of motive. What do you plan to do about the
minsrepresentations you have published?
| In spite of our differences, I'm interested in your comments and/or
| technical expertise that could shed some intellectual light upon the
| lunar surface environment.
Hogwash. You have shown no interest in my comments except insofar as you
can twist them to support your predetermined agenda. If your intent is
otherwise, prove it.
Joseph Oberlander
> Since the lunar core has been established as thermonuclear, there's
> bound to be geological vains or pockets of radioactive material worthy
> of becoming nuclear grade fuel, if not even weapons grade. So,
> obviously there's going to be locations of the lunar soil and/or rock
> being more radioactive than not.
Q: how far down would we have to dig to get a comfortable temperature?
Half a mile? A mile? That also certainly would be safe from any meteors
or radiation as well as a cinch to seal well enough to live in.
Jeff Relf
" The truth about the Mars surface ;
besides being frozen solid most of the time ,
its TBI impact
isn't sufficiently better off than our moon "
Humans require an exact temperature ... No more , No less .
Am I the only one that finds this odd ?
Mars is too cold , Venus is too hot .
Likewise ,
_ At 10 ^ -X seconds after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches infinity .
_ And at 10 ^ X years after the big bang ,
as X approaches infinity ,
the degrees Kelvin probably approaches zero .
So humans require not only this exact place ,
but also this exact cosmic time ... Very odd .
And what is it that we do ? We consume . Nothing else .
Just like everything everywhere does . Not very special .
It's cosmic chauvinism :
We're only " The Greatest "
because we define what that term means .
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:970mg63p1kio.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
...
> So humans require not only this exact place ,
> but also this exact cosmic time ... Very odd .
>
> And what is it that we do ? We consume . Nothing else .
>
> Just like everything everywhere does . Not very special .
We reproduce (like everything else).
We observe. Which in quantum mechanics has a specific meaning.
We manipulate.
Without getting religious, that's about it. Figured you wanted to stay
with what can be documented through experiment...
And don't go inflating my ego again.
David A. Smith
The Ghost In The Machine
<__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET>
wrote
on Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:16:47 -0800
<970mg63p1kio.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf>:
I should point out we're perfectly evolved for the conditions here. :-)
To some extent, if the Earth were hotter or colder, we'd be perfectly
comfortable with the Earth being hotter or colder.
As for what we do: we also think, and a number of us produce:
Maxwell, Einstein, Poincaire, Schroedinger, and countless others.
Or one can think of the inventer of the transistor (Shockley)
or the group creating ENIAC, EDSAC, the IBM PC, or the Hubble.
Or one can think of the many many others who mine the Earth,
manufacture things, or provide services.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Brad Guth
> In article <9f50a7c5.03102...@posting.google.com>, Brad Guth
> <ieis...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Trying to win another kook award?
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-
I may eventually be proven entirely wrong about the moon;
That is if others want to believe that the lunar environment is as
habitable as those Apollo missions so indicated, without nearly the
degree of primary nor secondary radiation, as without all the expected
borage and/or gauntlet of meteorites and of their secondary shards
sturine about as well as incoming, also as devoid of lunar basalt as
most all the images depicted a much greater illumination refraction
index, and otherwise a moon that was somehow created from Earth and
still receding from Earth as the NASA bible proclaims, then certainly
that's just as likely as good as for believing in those invisible WMD,
and thereby of justifying the degree of war-crimes as some form of
legitimate prerequisite to moralising the levels of carnage which we
introduced as levels of truly mass destruction, in spite of the fact
there had been ongoing efforts (certified) at obtaining and of
delivering top level defections from Iraq, as of a month prior.
After all, the Pope historically got away with exterminating Cathars,
as well as Jews certainly managed their fair share of 6-Day war crimes
by conveniently eliminating any need for incarcerating war prisoners
(not to mention their taking out our USS LIBERTY), so why shouldn't
that tried and proven method of shoot first and ask questions later
work fine and dandy for us?
Now it seems, since we've all been snookered by Saddam, subsequently
we failed at locating those invisible WMD, its now become the search
for those WSD (weapons of small distruction, as in US made stingers
and land mines) that we're tracking down, of which we may stand
somewhat less of a chance at locating than of those WMD. And even if
we located the first round of such WSD, their replacements are just as
likely in route from a half dozen resources as we speak.
Face it, for these mostly Musilm folks that would rather die than make
peace with anyone, as bad and nasty as Saddam was, folks were somewhat
better off than now and, at least we knew whom and where most of them
were. Admidedly, Saddam was no Santa Claws, more or less a loose
cannon with respect to his being the underdog of oil marketeering,
willing and able to stoop below the American oil cartel price at the
drop of a hat, thereby clearly undermining the American/Saudi agenda
of ruling by way of world energy reservies, so that poor countries
remain poor and thereby unable to compete in the open world markets.
Since energy becomes such a manipulation utility, by way of controling
whom gets what, and at what price, clearly structuring their bottom
line as for subsequently distributing and thereby competing on the
open market. By controling energy, you essentially control
productivity and/or profits, thereby remotely establish price fixing
and/or favorable trade restrictions without ever getting yourself
directly involved.
Likewise, by imiting the scientific talents and resources, and/or
prohibiting all together those capable of accomplishing great things,
from even venturing into anything lunar or Venus, this is clearly a
despret act of a failed overlord or cult-like controlling factor, one
that sets the stage for holding tight onto their status quo or else,
for otherwise blocking truths, for enforcing their "nondisclosure
policies, self-denying even the possibility that folks like myself
could be a little more right than not.
Just because I may have been striving a little too hard at exposing
others to the opportunities at hand, in place of so many others more
qualified, attempting to save what's left of the US economy by
focusing our talents and reserves upon obtainable goals, and
subsequently exaggerated a wee bit in order to make a few points,
and/or a little too freely extrapolated (reverse engineered) with
insufficient knowledge, isn't to say that I'm not absolutely correct
about the most critical aspects of what's existing on Venus, as well
as for what's entirely possible about accomplishing good things with
respect to our moon.
If such unintentional mistakes counts as a total banishment factor,
then by all means, we seriously need to replace our resident warlord,
then marching all the way through NASA with a bloody fist full of
retroactive pink-slips, not to forget those NSA/DoD, FBI/CIA and most
recent SEC fiasco contributions, all of which desperately require more
than a little house keeping.
Replacing such authority with a DHS puppet is hardly the solution, as
only deep cleaning, as in "hard re-formatting" of those embeded hard
drives is in order. Then a central re-boot using an operating system
that's not Microsoft prone to bugs and worms is imperative. In other
words, a good LINUX operating system with absolutely NO back or side
doors left open.
In case some of you're a bit lost; All of this lunar interest is in
regard to my Lunar Space Elevator and/or GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express)
depot, as a means to an end:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
Jeff Relf
" As for what we do : we also think , and ... produce "
No , We think and produce _ In Order to Consume _ .
All we do is consume , Just like everything else does .
Jeff Relf
" We observe ... We manipulate ... that's about it "
Q. Why do we observe and manipulate ?
A. In order to consume .
And everything everywhere consumes ...
Nothing special there .
Humanity calls itself great ... I call myself great .
But we define what that means .
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Jeff Relf" <__.Jef...@NCPlus.NET> wrote in message
news:1a36lq33w3dhe.dlg@__.Jeff.Relf...
Mona Lisa. The works of Tolkein. Science. Beethoven.
Consumption? I think the need for consumption alone could not have
produced these things. Yes, Leonardo was under commission by his patron.
Yes, Tolkein was most likely on cocaine during part of the Middle Earth
series. But the beauty I observe transcends the mundane. IMHO.
David A. Smith
Jeff Relf
" Mona Lisa. The works of Tolkien. Science. Beethoven "
Music can make you dance and consume more oxygen .
And it inspires people to breed ...
Leading to more consumption .
Even sleeping allows more consumption upon awakening .
Brad Guth
> I feel the more ideas about how to get out of a gravity well, the
> better; but in all I've seen (without reading the original refereed
> papers) I haven't seen any discussion about a simple basic. Lifting a
> mass out of a gravity well takes energy. The lifted object acquires
> potential energy (of height) and kinetic energy (of motion). The
> liftee acquires that energy from the lifter.
> Where does the lifter get that energy from? How is it replenished?
>
Dear Martha,
In the LSE-CM/ISS, the lifter(s) get their energy from (besides
nuclear and solar PV and of considerable solar/sterling energy
conversion alternatives) a tether dipole, one end of which is
obviously attached to the moon itself (perhaps two or more of these,
while the other element is of what's being polarised by the Earth
gravity-well (between at a dynamically regulated null are those
massive counter-rotating flywheels for energy storage), plus from
whatever the Earthly deployed extension element that could reach to
within 50,000 km of Earth has to provide.
Do remember that the dynamic ME-L1 null (even the ME-L1.1) rather
uniquely offers nearly a zero G and thereby nearly zero energy
solution (other than acceleration) for transferring whatever towards
moon or Earth.
Perhaps this following is just the tip of this tether dipole iceberg.
Obviously there's tidal gravitational forces continuously at work, as
otherwise something as massive as the Earth/Moon union would become
one.
Since I've learned from Marvin (Kir...@pixie.co.za) that lunar
recession is presumably taking roughly 4 terawatts/year, while I'm
thoroughly confused about calculating something other upon lunar drag
into similar terms of continuous energy requirement, I've decided to
do a little shock and awe reverse engineering, based upon yet another
of my village idiot guestimates of lunar drag consuming another 1e12
W, a terawatt worth of tidal forces that's having only to offset for
drag in order to sustain the lunar orbit speed at zero recession.
If we were to allot said 1e12 (terawatt) to represent the necessary
energy to overcome a lunar drag coefficient.
1e12/38e12 = 26.3 mw/m2
If we were to further suggest that the space weather environment in
which the moon travels about Earth is representing but 1/1000th that
viscosity and kinetic energy of the ISS orbit.
If we were use an ISS surface reference area of 1000 m2, as well as
the 1000 times greater atmosphere as multiplier factors:
26.3e-3 * 1e3 * 1e3 = 26.3 kw (in other words 35.8 hp)
Thus it's taking 26.3 kw worth of continuous energy applied in order
to sustain the likes of ISS in a fixed (non-recession) orbit, in other
words of overcoming friction as that based upon the consideration of
the ISS environment being of 1e3 greater viscosity than lunar space,
as well as for having to travel roughly 11 fold faster than the moon,
which may actually compute as an overall 11e3:1.
Obviously if lunar space were merely 100 times thinner, then the
reverse engineering calculations for ISS compensation drops to a mere
2.6 kw.
Perhaps 26 kw is simply too much continuous energy applied for ISS
but, I'd have to bet that 2.6 kw is not sufficient, thereby the
atmosphere and/or space weather difference may actually become 400~500
times thinner for that of the moon traveling through at 1.025 km/s.
Of course absolutely none of this is sufficiently correct but, at
least it gives myself something to go along with those 4 terawatts
worth of recession energy, making the overall tally for continuous
gravitational tidal forces per year applied onto the moon as
representing perhaps 5 terawatts.
4e12 + 1e12 = 5e12 W
If there's now 5e12 W to draw upon (disregarding solar PV conversions
and/or induced solar plasma electrons and/or EMF factors taken from
solar weather as well as from our Van Allen zone of death, all of
which should actually be worth quite a great deal, so much so that it
seems exactly the sort of tether dipole extraction potential that I'm
thinking can be safely applied into those massive counter-rotating
flywheels situated at the ME-L1 (gravity-well null).
Just for a little further shock and awe argument sake, lets say that
the additional energy input (besides the overall recession energy)
provides us with one additional terawatt resource, now all toll were
looking at 6 terawatts, whereas tapping into 50% of that energy yields
3 terawatts, enough energy to run 20 of those 100 GW laser cannons
plus another terawatt to spare. Obviously only 2 of those terawatts
are those being extracted from the recession energy.
5e12 + 1e12 = 6e12 * 0.5 = 3e12 W extracted
We certainly can't take away everything, as that could reverse things
by pulling the moon into Earth, a seriously bad sort of thing to be
doing. Although, if the bulk of energy taken is what's converted into
laser cannon energy focused upon relatively small portions of Earth
(not that Earth isn't already getting a little too hot under the
collar), say quadrant targets zones of as little as 1 km diameter
along with a 10 km safety buffer zone, at least some of this extracted
energy should return itself as a slight repulsion factor.
As we manage to run ourselves out of natural petroleum as well as most
other natural resources and remain too dumbfounded to safely utilize
nuclear energy (like those smart ass French have been doing for
decades), and way too energy inefficient to rely upon wind and ocean
tidal resources (too polluted and otherwise too greenhouse for solar
PV), thereby having insufficient energy for exterminating the
remaining populations we don't happen to like; By properly using laser
cannons of either near UV or near IR, or perhaps both spectrums so
that at least humans aren't blinded while the least amount of thermal
energy is contributed upon Earth (this is actually where I'd favor the
near IR [750~800 nm] that shouldn't blind the nocturnal species), this
tactic being where those multiple 100 GW cannons can sort of light
your fire from afar, just might do the trick.
If those 20 or so 100 GW laser cannon beams are being efficiently
transmitted and converted, I'd tend to think the overall input/output
conversion that's obtained on Earth might eventually reach 25%, thus 2
terawatts of input becomes 500 GW, which isn't all that bad for the
hundreds of billions it may take to pull that one off.
For your entertainment sake, I've added another page (GV-LM-1) and
edited upon a couple of others:
If I were to be suggesting upon wild and crazy things, as if this is
what makes life worth living, especially if they're to be horrifically
spendy and somewhat lethal, in that case I've got lots to say about
utilizing the moon as well as Venus.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-103.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-joke.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
plus a few dozen other pages.
Brad Guth
fiasco:
Here's just an example of one of my more recent post pertaining to
those typically objecting to almost anything lunar.
Subject: Re: Lunar Hotel link
From: Henry Spencer (he...@spsystems.net)
"Nobody is going to build a lunar hotel or a space colony at anywhere
near current launch prices."
How true about the NOT "anywhere near current launch prices", as I'll
agree that the American cost of doing just about anything is simply
outrageous in comparison to almost anyone else. Now that the Chinese
have come online for not one cent on the dollar, chances are that of
at least of their robotic delivery of just about anything you can
think of could be accomplished at as little as $10/kg, that is if you
pulled out all the spendy PR and infomercial aspects, eliminated all
the "do absolutely nothing" and/or "cloak and dagger" sorts of
nondisclosure folks that our NASA insist upon employing at horrific
lifetime investments, not to mention the absurdity of per individual
outfitting investments, plus layers of the old guard cult (NSA/DoD)
infrastructure and spendy accommodations surrounding nearly everyone
of these folks.
Getting real about "robotic deliveries" is getting real about
establishing the LSE, as well as the LSE-CM/ISS and of the associated
lobby and/or whatever hotel, along with a fleet of those LM-1 metro
transporters powered by IC diesel like engines having their H2O2
injected in much the same manner as for their diesel fuel.
Fortunately, robotic missions are basically immune to most otherwise
lethal radiation issues (not to mention micro and/or not so micro
meteorite issues), their efficiency per volume as well as per kg is
likely to cost all but 1% of doing just about anything involving a
human life.
Robotic deliveries can and should have long ago managed dozens of
lunar interactive instruments, including the VLA/SAR technology, by
now accommodating hundreds of tonnes of machinery, fuel/oxidisers and
various chemical binders, eventually taking advantage of a relatively
safer environment of commissioning their assembly via earthshine, of
subsequently assembling those previously delivered components into the
sorts of operational technological capability necessary for gathering
and processing local basalt into those terrific fibers and
microspheres, a process that will subsequently enable nearly all the
remaining fabrication that's necessary for creating the LSE tethers as
well as the CM/ISS and CCM spheres, plus those horrific flywheels,
plus whatever else is required of the dipole element extensions.
True; there's not a scrap of lunar lander technology that we have to
offer that'll make for any of this challenge any easier than it is.
Thus an effort by others (obviously smarter than us) as to getting
those 10+t payloads down onto the lunar surface may press our worldly
technologies and expertise resources to the max, though if some idiot
like Zubrin is going to Mars, we'll obviously have to become
proficient at managing those 25+t payload deposits onto a surface
pulling at twice the force, thereby taking nearly 4 times the energy
unless delivery debris and subsequent artificial crater analogy is
their objective.
Once the basic LSE-CM/ISS becomes operational, then all sorts of folks
could work a lifetime of achieving what could otherwise only be
affordably accommodated at near zero gravity as well as for being as
near to absolute vacuum that's obtainable to our existing level of
human involved space exploration. The unique tethered gravity-well
null environment of EM-L1 (energy core of counter-rotating flywheels
that's storing and distributing energy) is offering something that no
other recorded planet/moon has. Best of all, ours is right nearby, to
being safely utilized without the added impact of a horrific particle
surround of the Van Allen zone of death which represents multiple
times the TBI dosage of what even the solar illuminated lunar surface
creates.
As gateways to just about anywhere (including Earth) could exist, our
moon offering the mutual gravity-well opportunity is truly unique and
begging to being pressed into service, especially with all the
essential Earth sciences demanding raw data, some of which an only be
obtained from the lunar and/or LSE-CM/ISS perspective. The most recent
NOVA produced infomercial pertaining to Earth's magnetic core shifting
rapidly, and as such drastically affecting the magnetosphere that's
offering a substantial degree of radiation shield and/or deflection,
seems only to further beg for our having better options than we
currently have.
Unlike Venus, Earth's atmosphere isn't worth squat, as it's not going
to be sufficient to stop the gauntlet of solar and cosmic flak from
nailing our hides to the wall. Though if a sufficient degree of
greenhouse can be expedited along, possibly with placing 50% of our
oceans suspended into the atmosphere, along with a heavy degree of
sulphur and CO2 content, could introduce a form of artificial
electrolytic shield, that along with our advancing greenhouse survival
technology could permit at least those rich and powerful enough to
survive without benefit of the unified magnetic sphere. Though
managing life on Venus, as hot and nasty as even their season of
nighttime still is, could actually become less difficult.
Placing our moon into a rather unique opportunity of salvation for the
human race, by the LSE-CM/ISS accommodating an affordable pitstop at
the Guth Moon Dirt Express (GMDE) depot, as for taking on the required
tonnage of basalt moon dirt and rock for missions to planets like
Venus and even frozen an irradiated to death Mars, as those
expeditions will be in demand of a great deal of physical as well as
radiation shielding, as well as for obtaining other invaluable
elements necessary for those EMPD thrusters. Oddly, all of this seems
to fit quite nicely into the realm of rational possibilities for what
our moon and of the LSE-CM/ISS has to offer.
In addition to all the above, the investment into the LSE-CM/ISS
offers absolutely invaluable Earth defenses as a rather terrific laser
cannon outpost, including all the energy to operate them, plus
numerous energy benefits for Earth, along with all those capabilities
of utilizing our moon for the other good and meaningful humanitarian
as well as potentially lizardtarian benefits.
For your continuing entertainment sake, plus on behalf of those coming
into this topic without benefit of nearly three years worth of my
efforts, I've added another infomercial page (GV-LM-1) and edited upon
a couple of others.
If I were to be suggesting upon the sorts of wild and crazy things, as
if this is what makes your life worth living, especially if those were
to be of the sorts of horrifically spendy and somewhat lethal agendas
like the Mars or bust and ESE fiasco, in that case I've got lots other
to say about utilizing the moon as well as Venus.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-103.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-joke.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
plus a few dozen other pages, with more on their way.
Brad Guth
anything PV to death.
Especially of a lunar environment, where the thermal differentials are
so freaking horrific, as well as for the sealed nature of the beast is
another win-win for the sterling energy conversion, that plus the fact
that it'll handle the focused energy delivery that 1000 m2 worth of
efficient mylar mirrors can introduce. Radiation certainly isn't a
factor, nor of most micro meteorites, other than for having to patch
and/or replace those relatively lightweight and thereby cheap mylar
reflectors.
For your continuing entertainment sake, plus on behalf of those coming
into this topic without benefit of nearly three years worth of my
efforts, I've added another infomercial page (GV-LM-1) and edited upon
a couple of others.
If I were to be suggesting upon the sorts of wild and crazy things, as
if this is what makes your life worth living, especially if those were
to be of the sorts of horrifically spendy and somewhat lethal agendas
like the Mars or bust and ESE fiasco, in that case I've got lots other
to say about utilizing the moon as well as Venus.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/space-radiation-103.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-energy.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/vl2-iss-joke.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
plus a few dozen other pages, with more on their way.
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote in message news:<HnH8M...@spsystems.net>...
Brad Guth
I do believe that "1,429 watts/kg" is only for the frail PV cells, not
their environment packaging nor robotics for essential solar tracking
as well as stowing before being hit whit horrific solar flak, nor
accounting for the 5% or greater loss per year.
The solar flak of the month of November 2003 could actually take out
the entire array, as in lock, stock and barrel.
Brad Guth
I actually couldn't agree more about using whatever spaceships as
trade enterprise tools, especially for those flown by robotics, at not
1% the cost of accomplishing anything manned and not 0% the chance of
any carnage, though I don't consider the ESE fiasco as a worthy topic
of such robotics, at least not for a few decades worth and then only
if someone other is paying for it.
Why even bother going to a most likely inhabited planet like Venus if
we can otherwise establish a TRACE-II class instrument (outfitted with
having laser transceivers) at VL2, then using a relatively few quantum
laser packets in order to obtain/exchange all the information
necessary and then some. Only if need be to sending off a trading ship
that'll do as little environmental damage on both ends, as well as for
eliminating the age old problem of letting the other guy get a good
look at exactly what you've honestly got to actually work with.
http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/radio-maybe.htm
Mars or bust;
Here's another topic or two pertaining to what our frozen and
irradiated to death Mars has to offer (damn little to say the most):
I've looked again at some of the most interesting of Mars images; of
those frozen trees or bushes or whatever looks like trees and/or
bushes.
I tend to agree that the Mars-tree image is simply too *plan view* and
not of sufficient perspective to fully appreciate the vertical
attributes, though I do believe there is a sufficient amount of
vertical structure that's placing such patterns above the surface, of
which is still not excluding some hybrid crystal growth rather than of
frozen and irradiated to death trees or perhaps bushes.
The notion of there being "star dunes" was offered by Tom Newcomb, is
certainly just as worth another look-see as if those were once
organic. Though for some unexplained reason there's been insufficient
efforts at navigating the imaging probe into a better position for a
perspective view.
If we had applied the sort of SAR imaging technology as the Magellan
did of Venus, at the rather terrific perspective view of 43°, then lo
and behold we'd have far more usable as well as believable pixels to
boot.
From my observation of those same "Mars trees" images
(http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/mars-01.htm), I tend to feel the
shadows projected are more likely suggesting such are of sufficient
conical structure, though that doesn't rule out the notions of "star
dunes" nor of "mineral structures". As frozen trees or bushes tend to
go, they're obviously not representing sufficient solids as to create
a crisp shadow. There may likely be a good deal of crystal growth on
top of whatever died, creating even further opacity and/or diffusion
of light.
The pathetically thin (7 to 8 mb) and damn cold (except for a few
tropical zone hours above freezing), as well as for being situated
within a horrifically irradiated to death environment (being further
away from the sun may reduce the solar flak but it's certainly not
helping with fending off the cosmic flak), would have needed a
transition of perhaps at least thousands of years for DNA/RNA to have
adapted. So far, I don't believe the surface impacts as indicated on
half of Mars is offering much hope, but for a few years at best, since
all environmental hell must have broken lose once Mars was impacted to
such an extent.
BTW; I've updated one of my pages pertaining to obtaining and/or
extracting energy on location, of where others have been making a
tough go of it on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/fire-on-venus.htm
Brad Guth
the moon there's technically absolutely no problem whatsoever,
especially these days. We could even send one of our shuttles off to
orbiting the moon because there's essentially no radiation nor even
pesky micro-meteorites to worry about, and we'd already have that
other shuttle for the "what if" factor. Though how about
micro-thrusting ISS into a lunar orbit, as for eventually and
relatively efficiently station-keeping itself at the ME-L1
gravity-well null (there's certainly far less drag at ME-L1 than as
for flying through the space-junk overloaded soup of the day around
Earth?
We could even include a sufficient supply of "banked bone marrow" as
to resolve whatever excessive TBI dosage issues that might crop up
(such as the Oct/Nov 2003 solar events), though our Apollo folks only
received a few millirem per day while fully solar exposed to a
somewhat solar-maximum phase, while having far less shielding at that,
so obviously doing the moon again should be like taking another "walk
in the park".
BTFW; the following is just for this wonderful posting opportunity, in
case some nice folks haven't yet discovered what the likes of wizard
Jay is all about. Checkout some of the following topic and be sure to
reflect upon those two quotes offered by Lord Jay Windley.
"The moon, the Apollo ruse/sting, the snookered fools we are"
The lunar environment is obviously not moderated by any significant
atmosphere nor Van Allen belt, thus of the solar/cosmic, cosmic and
gamma ray exposures are unimpeded, and as such the radiation
environment is hardly being stabilized nor averaged over time. It's
either too damn hot or too damn cold or too freaking lethal unless
you're enjoying all of it by earthshine, though not to mention having
to avoid the somewhat pesky issue of it raining micro meteorites.
The space/solar weather of such nasty stuff includes a great deal of
the relatively passive warmth of IR, on into the somewhat lethal UV
spectrums, either of which can be fended off by relatively low
technology, although UV/c can start to be a bit penetrating unless
there's an artificial barrier of sufficient solids, such as any good
moon suit will suffice.
Higher frequency and thus high energy is not so easily stopped by any
moon suit, and of what is being slowed down and/or partially absorbed
by the suit, or by way of most any substance, is what creates those
hard x-ray class radiation issues. Actually the greater the material
density the greater the secondary impact becomes, especially at the
thickness and/or density per square centimeter of what our Apollo
mission had to work with.
Of too little shielding and you're affected by the direct radiation
impact, of thicker shield and/or of greater density obviously blocks
more of the primary influx while creating greater and even somewhat
more lethal hard x-ray class dosage. Depending upon what sort of
influx or solar flak is hitting your exterior environment, such as
cosmic and/or gamma can obviously make a rather tremendous difference
of mostly negative issues as far as protecting life as we know it.
Just like our sun can deliver relatively passive and low energy
dosages, while at times the solar output offers the capability and/or
intensity of exceeding several thousand rads per hour, which is not a
serious exposure problem if you've got a healthy Van Allen zone plus
tonnes of atmosphere per m2 as your shield, and not that thousands of
folks don't go about expiring each and every year specifically due to
their receiving too much solar and cosmic radiation.
When those several thousand rads per hour impact a substance such as
clumping moon dirt, a matrix of many things that should represent
3.4+g/cc, this is where the somewhat lethal solar flux that's just
plain old nasty becomes downright lethal within an hour's worth of
exposure. Thus the lunar surface exposed to a passive solar
environment might lull itself into creating a mere 100 rads (1 Sv) per
day (24 hours or a respectable 4.17 rads/hr), although the sun wasn't
in any passive mode nor was the solar activity sufficient as to fend
off the cosmic and gamma ray aspects, thus the combined surface impact
for whatever and/or whomever was certainly capable of creating 360
rads per day (15 rads/hr), that is if you're honestly accounting for
the secondary contributions of what the lunar surface itself was
capable of creating.
Your standard issue moon suit can cut the likes of direct solar
radiation, mostly because at least for some of the passive/thermal
solar event timeline isn't itself of lethal hard x-ray class, although
of whatever does impact the suit and mostly of what impacts the lunar
surface will be creating a fairly large TBI worthy dosage. More recent
solar events such as those of October/November 2003 were off the
scale, so strong that of our best instruments were essentially blown
away. Fortunately there were only much smaller ongoing solar events
during the Apollo mission era, which was a good thing as for fending
off some of the cosmic class radiation, though representing a truly
bad sort of thing as for any space expedition that's as close as we
were to our sun.
As for being further away from the sun, such as Mars, offers a solar
environment safety improvement, though somewhat worse off as for
allowing more cosmic radiation to impact and subsequently interact
with whatever and/or whomever is anywhere near and/or situated behind
a substance that's not sufficiently thick enough as to block and
otherwise absorb all of the influx, plus having to subdue secondary
hard x-ray class radiation before it gets to your butt. It seems we
currently have a wee bit of a problem in placing sufficient mass into
orbit, much less headed off to places like the moon or Mars, thus our
manned missions off to whatever is residing outside our Van Allen zone
of death are essentially unresolved issues as of today, though not
insurmountable.
The absolute proof that it's truly nasty beyond our Van Allen zone of
death is in the pudding, in the fact that there's been an effort to
skew and/or cloak the truthful data, as for example in providing
absolutely no access to any of the original negatives or film
transparencies of these Apollo missions. At this point I'm not even
suggesting upon obtaining an actual image frame, but merely of the
leader and/or trail which couldn't possibly have betrayed and/or
impacted upon one of those infamous images, of which there are 10's of
thousands of said frames to select from, of which the public has
viewed copies and/or prints from less than 1%, leaving 99% of those
available frames (stills and movie film) nonutilized, perhaps because
those weren't all that great to look at, though of what the image
contains is rather insignificant as for otherwise determining
radiation, of which just about any portion of film, from an actual
frame or of what's between or of the leader/trailer portions would
have done just fine and dandy.
Though sadly, at this late time, there'd be no way of identifying the
film as for being actual Apollo related, unless those were of viable
lunar landscape images included. As for obtaining a trailer/leader
portion of processed film would simply be unreliable and entirely
meaningless since there'd be no certainty of it actually being what it
is.
Using an electron microscope, or even a sufficiently good digital scan
of a section of even a film leader and/or trailer could have revealed
the exact dosages of radiation exposure, down to the individual
millirad or millirem level, as even a single millirad worth of
recorded dosage could have been detected, though this would have taken
100+ millirad in order to have become observed to the human eye, of
which all such Apollo mission film should have received at least
several rads/rems if not hundreds. Human cells will for the most part
recover from such TBI dosages, though film offers a one-way recording
of the radiation accumulation, with or without ever being exposed to
taking pictures.
Of course at this point there's no simple and/or definitive method of
identifying a primary radiation impact from that of a secondary,
although the electron microscope could help to determined the various
wavelength differences affecting those film emulsion crystals. Film
crystals being mostly analog, but also somewhat digital in that every
individual crystal or photon bucket can be affected to a differing
degree, as there are far more of those emulsion crystals (photon
buckets) per square mm than our finest CCD technology of even today,
thus a great deal of information has always been available, far
exceeding the optical lens resolution, including the detection of
mostly near UV starlight upon those crystals. But oddly all access has
been avoided for the rather obvious reasons, of reasons that must
include the fact of such imaging wasn't necessarily accomplished on
the lunar surface.
This doesn't represent that our Apollo missions didn't for a time exit
the Van Allen zone of death, possibly even to orbit the moon and of
robotically deploying any number of experiments, as even a lunar orbit
would have been quite risky business and of itself somewhat TBI
worthy, although nowhere as bad off as for the actual solar and cosmic
irradiated surface.
Since there's supposedly been absolutely nothing for NASA or as for
those worshiping of Apollo folks to fear nor lose, absolutely no
possible damage to an original frame of their precious film, the only
remaining fact of the matter becomes rather too obvious. Not that
there's plenty of image contents worth arguing about, like the 50+%
reflective index that's clearly observed within so may of the images,
and for the rather odd lack of sufficient meteorites and various
impact shards strewn about the lunar morgue, of a fully exposed
surface which should have been at least as covered by such debris as
Mars is, if not a whole lot more so.
Actually, the ongoing numbers of micro meteorites impacting the lunar
surface at 5+km/s should have been at least one per m2/day, although
one per m2/hour shouldn't have been unexpected, and of any suitable
lander constructed as for fending off such an influx. We now realize
that the lander was anything but sufficiently constructed as to fend
off much more than clumping moon dirt, among many other deficiencies
which included radiation abatement that obviously wasn't worth squat,
except for avoiding a UV class sun burn.
Jay Windley wrote:
"It is simply not necessary to follow all lines of investigation to
some absolute standard of completeness in order to draw reliable
conclusions."
and
"The search for truth is not a game in which evidence is doled out
according to some strategy. It is based on full and accurate
disclosure of the facts for examination."
Jay Windley's first quote is quite true to life, although his second
quote is surely from another planet besides Earth, perhaps from
another dimension to boot.
I guess I'm still the lone village idiot that's been thinking way
outside the box, as for our going back to the moon (if ever) may have
to be for robots, not for mankind. At least not until we have obtained
a sufficiently astronaut pilot documented and thus working lander of
sufficient shielding as for radiation as well as for fending off all
those pesky micro meteorites.
LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator plus Counter Mass and new ISS) or
GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express), plus there's lots of other related
stuff, with more on the way (incorrect math, poor grammar and my
dyslexic syntax to boot);
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-basalt.htm
Jay Windley
|
| We could even send one of our shuttles off to orbiting the
| moon because there's essentially no radiation nor even pesky
Guess again. Just because we oppose your alarmist theory of "Van Allen
Zones of Death doesn't mean we gravitate toward the opposite extreme. No
one claims that space is a radiation-free environment, as you seem to want
to pin on us. Can you possibly conceive of an environment that is indeed
hazardous, but not as hazardous as you believe it to be? Or will you
continue to eviscerate this straw man (or straw Borg, as you prefer) that
you've created?
| ...be sure to reflect upon those two quotes offered by Lord
| Jay Windley.
Interesting how you pay attention to what I say when I'm talking with
someone else, and how you extract quotes from those conversations as if they
were spoken to you. Yet when I address you directly and respond to your
specific comments with specific answers in-line, you stick your fingers in
your ears and sing loudly your standard tune about how Jay never responds to
anything substantively. Do you really think we don't notice this?
Brad Guth
It seems as though, whenever you're speaking to others, and
subsequently utilizing your skewed laws of physics in order to suit
the task at hand, that of those very same laws of supposedly honest
investigation and research shouldn't become all that conditional, but
they are, more often than not extremely conditional on your behalf.
All that I've ever specified is of what's to the best of what I've
obtained from others (surprisingly that indirectly includes yourself),
which pegs the typical lunar radiation environment (raw/external to
moon suit) at roughly 342 rads/day, that's per sunny day and not by
earthshine. Obviously that sort of environment is short-term
survivable and within the realm of what Apollo must have experienced,
if not being way conservative. Though that KODAK film simply couldn't
have managed so easily.
Sharing NASA moderated information is like the "I'm not guilty" plea
suggested by 99.99% of those folks incarcerate, which doesn't
represent that some are in fact NOT GUILTY. Quoting NASA/Apollo
moderated information is not the same as your personal expertise
coming into some reasonable conclusions as based upon other
information, of which you've never done, and perhaps wouldn't dare for
fear of those "nondisclosure" cops.
I guess I'm still the lone village idiot that's been thinking way
outside the Apollo box, as for our going back to the moon (if ever)
may have to be reserved for robots, not for mankind. At least not
until we have obtained a sufficiently astronaut pilot documented and
thus certified working lander of sufficient shielding as for radiation
as well as for fending off all those pesky micro meteorites.
LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator plus Counter Mass and new ISS) or
GMDE (Guth Moon Dirt Express), plus there's lots of other related
stuff, with more on the way (incorrect math, poor grammar and my
dyslexic syntax to boot);
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-basalt.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
Jay Windley
| obtained from others (surprisingly that indirectly includes yourself),
| which pegs the typical lunar radiation environment (raw/external to
| moon suit) at roughly 342 rads/day
No. That's wrong. I've explained why it's wrong. I explained your
statistical error to you. More than twice. You ignored the explanation
every time I raised it. You continue to ignore it even now.
What can be said of you except that you're completely entrenched to the
point of delusion?
| Quoting NASA/Apollo moderated information is not the same as
| your personal expertise coming into some reasonable conclusions
| as based upon other information
You have no personal expertise. You read NASA information, fail to
understand it, draw silly conclusions based on it, and then fail to take any
sort of individual responsibility. I read the same information, apply
legitimate expertise to it, explain it to you in extremely simple terms, and
you reject it categorically as having been "NASA moderated". And so I show
you non-NASA information, interpret it, explain it simply, and you reject it
as "NASA moderated". Clearly you're not paying attention.
| ...of which you've never done
Patently false. I did so just a couple of days ago.
| I guess I'm still the lone village idiot that's been thinking way
| outside the Apollo box
You're still the village idiot who understands nothing of Apollo and the
sciences behind it and other valid examples of space travel.
You're not "thinking outside the box". You have no clue where or what "the
box" is in this case.
Brad Guth
getting innocent folk killed off nor bankrupting all the others. I'm
also not intentionally lying like some folks we know. I don't even
have to use the "so what's the difference" qualifier, simply because
nice folks are dropping like flies.
Spending whatever (including human lives) has nothing whatsoever to do
with anything associated with our resident warlord, and that's a fact.
Though JFK would have been proud of what I'm offering, though still
thoroughly dead because of the cold-war moon-race was everything, as
in all or nothing. There's still an ongoing cold-war over energy
resources as well as for energy alternatives.
Our NASA certainly needs an over-dosage of honesty, truth of history
and of what's affordably obtainable, without creating excessive CO2
contributions nor carnage or busting the bank.
Even though the lunar environment simply wasn't then and isn't now the
sort of Apollo "walk in the park" as most folks would like to think,
such as most snookered Americans and the likes of wizard Jay suggest.
Good grief, we need to get ourselves unplugged from their Borg
collective, then get into an actual life as well as an education, then
stop lying to ourselves and everyone else.
I believe, as well as do others, the moon is our best ever pitstop key
to going places, especially with the lunar stash of H3, made easily
accessible via the LSE-CM/ISS. Though NASA Borge seem to opposed
absolutely anything lunar (why is that?).
Just in case you've missed out on my warm and fuzzy timeline of the
JFK demise rant, I've included some further thoughts as to our
moon-race, of the all or nothing "cold-war" aspects of the JFK demise,
placing some of my most recent thoughts into this document. Hopefully
I've managed to share by reintroducing a little aspect of fun into the
following page.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
BTW; Those Apollo moon landings weren't faked, just weren't manned.
Now I'm understanding why the likes of Dr. Zubrin and of Brad Edwards
want nothing whatsoever to do with anything lunar, even though our
moon offers not only the most H3 bang for the buck, but of likely the
only viable alternative pitstop worthy of getting folks to/from places
like Mars or Venus.
This following topic should place new meaning to the moon being too
hot to humanly touch without getting seriously slapped by our resident
warlord, as for our moon offering way more than it's fair share of H3
energy. As such, here's a little more of my tit for tat favor
returning, as an update that's going thermalnuclear upon lunar H3.
"LSE-CM/ISS, mining and exporting H3"
This topic may become a bit premature for the likes of myself.
However, if there's been decades worth of talk, as well as in-depth
R&D as to our obtaining and then utilizing sufficient amounts of H3
from the moon, and that there's absolutely nothing that's energy
insurmountable other than for our physically obtaining said H3, then
perhaps the LSE-CM/ISS is just the H3 ticket to ride.
Of course, if we wait around for the likes of China, Japan, India,
other middle Easterns, or simply allow those Russian bastards that
seem to truly have every incentive you can possibly think of to being
the firstest with the mostest of their establishing this LSE-CM/ISS,
as for established such prior to ours. Well damn, this could become a
wee bit of a button pushing problem, seeing that only one of these LSE
suckers can exist (coexist isn't even an option), and of whomever has
the first LSE key will thereby rule the energy wealth of the future,
and perhaps rule upon a whole lot more if push comes to down to shove.
According to a few too many respected folks, this H3 energy is more
than a viable alternative, of which our moon has way more than it's
fair share of.
So, I think it's time we go back into a moon-race wars, though this
time not anything cold, but as hot and nasty as it takes because, if
we don't they will, it's that simple. If all else fails, we can nuke
whomever is annoying us and then use our "so what's the difference"
warlord qualifier as for exterminating whomever gets in our way (at
least the Pope will have to be on our side). Stealth donkey-carts or
not, the moon belongs to us because, we've made everyone think that
we've already been there and done that (so it's all ours, period!).
It sort of sounds like H3 is even offering somewhat of an ideal
spacecraft propulsion solution that'll kick butt.
No wonder our incest of esteemed astrophysics and astronomy Borgs are
keeping "mum's the word" about the moon, wanting nothing whatsoever to
do with our going back, and will do almost anything as to keeping
others from attempting. It's all about energy, just like the previous
three significant wars, actually a forth being the 6-Day war and I'm
fairly certain there are many smaller energy tit for tats, plus there
was certainly an undertow of WW-II having to do with energy agendas,
namely Hitler having more than his fair share, but also as for Japan
becoming energy export capable, by way of their conquering other
peoples land and of taking resources.
It seems, as long as others don't have the capability of extracting
lunar H3, then we're happy campers, as it's never been for an actual
shortage of Earthly energy resources, as much as it's been an
orchestrated agenda of keeping others from acquiring anything that
offers an affordable potential, as that way we don't have to actually
try to accomplish efficient and worthy goals for humanity, just as
long as the rest of our world remains in sufficient conflict or
without an affordable energy resource, while we continue to profit
from their demise, as then we rule by way of default and/or via world
class (shock and awe) WMD if need be, then invoke our "so what's the
difference" ruling if and when we're caught doing another one of those
Pope/Cathar atrocities.
Although, I do have a few recent comments on the H2O2/C12H26 thing:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
The page on the GV-LM-1 is pertaining to the lunar metro bus that's
track driven and capable of circumventing that moon, along with
fending off those pesky micro-meteorites and of whatever radiation.
This bus is H2O2/C12H26 fueled, operating from the IRRC engine that's
a rather happy camper in space as it is under water. If we're ever
going to have the LSE-Lobby, by all means we'll need a transporter
that'll survive, and for doing such in good style.
The LSE-CM/ISS that offers a means to many ends, is actually all about
our affordably and safely going places, such as off to visit those
frozen and irradiated to death Mars microbes, or otherwise off to
visit those nice Venus Cathar lizard folk, at least from the outpost
or vantage of VL2, where we'll deploy the likes of TRACE-II as
providing our first interplanetary communications platform, or sort of
laser-packet transponder of interplanetary smut.
Uncle Al
>
> Lo and behold, I happen to like my delusions,
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
P. Edward Murray
Where? What happens if the jet stream decides to visit the area? Tornado?
Hurricane?
I'm pretty cynical about this....not in my lifetime or perhaps in anyone's lifetime.
What do you say when you hear a proposal that seems to good to be true?
It turns out to be a scam.
Space Elevators just sound like a scam to me.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"P. Edward Murray" <eddies...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26c1aed8.03122...@posting.google.com...
> Space Elevator?
>
> Where? What happens if the jet stream decides to visit the area? Tornado?
> Hurricane?
You start to wonder about how planetary weather is starting to behave in
close to impossible ways.
In any case, these things have been thought about.
Brad Guth
what we have to work with, and of what's within technology as well as
expertise. I even have a few other plans of interplanetary
communications that aren't a penny on the dollar or the euro, that'll
offer more shock and awe than everything other to date, but obviously
the sort of skewed talents (like youreslf) found in GOOGLE don't give
an actual hoot about humanity.
In recent additions to my MAZDA like "Internal Rocket Rotary
Combustion Engine (IRRCE sfc = 15+KW/kg)", there seems we also have
ourselves a wee bit of lunar He3 to burn off.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-h2o2-irrce.htm
"Venus still offers life; via moon He3 could help turn the trick"
I've got a few more words of wisdom to offer on behalf of the ARTEMIS
PROJECT (lunar He3) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lse-he3.htm
The rest of this isn't entirely related to energy so much as it
relates to truth or consequences. Such as for this topic of there
being other life NOT as we know it, that's obviously opposing the
sorts of anti-humanity folks, that couldn't care less if our entire
world was destroyed by their resident warlord. Perhaps these folks can
get their next level of future funding from the same source as Bush,
Salem Laden.
As for making policy look like happenstance, and/or vice versa, is key
to snookering folks. http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
Though as for we humans need not, and perhaps should not venture
ourselves much beyond Venus L2 (VL2). Wouldn't want to contaminate a
perfectly good planet with our inferior DNA nor lack of morals,
especially of this group that's bashing honest research just out of
spite. Besides, their stealth donkey-carts could be far more lethal
than what our WMD donkey-carts can manage.
As far as human physiology being adaptable to pressure. Under such
pressure things are not nearly as hot as we've been told, and you wont
need but a fraction of a percent of O2. Of course, that degree of
adaptation might have to be at a modus rate of a few bars per day.
Http://guthvenus.tripod.com/venus-air.htm
I have a few other recent/ongoing comments on H2O2/C12H26 and of He3:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-irrce.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-hybrid-irc.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-lm-1.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/radio-maybe.htm
How about honest folks considering the likes of combusting
h2o2/c12h26?
How about honestly considering frozen h2o2; as for how safe is that?
Henry Spencer
P. Edward Murray <eddies...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Space Elevator?
>Where? What happens if the jet stream decides to visit the area? Tornado?
>Hurricane?
As with any engineered structure, it has to be designed for wind loads.
This is annoying but not prohibitively hard. Since only a very short
section of the cable -- the bottom 50km or so -- is exposed to wind loads,
you can add substantial amounts of mass to that section, if necessary,
without compromising the feasibility of the elevator.
Remember that the cable is enormously strong and firmly anchored at both
ends, and that its natural vibration frequencies are immensely low (a wave
takes hours to go from one end to the other).
There are reasonable questions about whether space elevators are
*financially* feasible now -- about whether first-generation systems can
be lucrative enough to be good investments, compared to investing the same
money in other space-launch systems -- but given an adequate cable
material, the basic technical feasibility is not in great doubt.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | he...@spsystems.net
Alain Fournier
Henry Spencer wrote:
>Remember that the cable is enormously strong and firmly anchored at both
>ends
>
Well I mostly agree with what you wrote but the cable is anchored at
only one end.
Alain Fournier
Joseph Oberlander
What? Surely you're missing the Death Star tethered to it in orbit?
( ;) for the impared)
The Ghost In The Machine
<he...@spsystems.net>
wrote
on Mon, 29 Dec 2003 18:44:44 GMT
<Hqo6q...@spsystems.net>:
> In article <26c1aed8.03122...@posting.google.com>,
> P. Edward Murray <eddies...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Space Elevator?
>>Where? What happens if the jet stream decides to visit the area? Tornado?
>>Hurricane?
>
> As with any engineered structure, it has to be designed for wind loads.
> This is annoying but not prohibitively hard. Since only a very short
> section of the cable -- the bottom 50km or so -- is exposed to wind loads,
> you can add substantial amounts of mass to that section, if necessary,
> without compromising the feasibility of the elevator.
>
> Remember that the cable is enormously strong and firmly anchored at both
> ends, and that its natural vibration frequencies are immensely low (a wave
> takes hours to go from one end to the other).
>
> There are reasonable questions about whether space elevators are
> *financially* feasible now -- about whether first-generation systems can
> be lucrative enough to be good investments, compared to investing the same
> money in other space-launch systems -- but given an adequate cable
> material, the basic technical feasibility is not in great doubt.
Uh...did you forget about the single-atom ions whizzing
around in the ionosphere? They'll do very little damage
one at a time (knocking out an atom per collision) but
over time that cable will snap. :-)
(I don't know how much time, admittedly.)
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:b1c7c1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>
>
> Uh...did you forget about the single-atom ions whizzing
> around in the ionosphere? They'll do very little damage
> one at a time (knocking out an atom per collision) but
> over time that cable will snap. :-)
This is why any beanstalk plan accounts for repairs and replacement of
strands.
Henry Spencer
Alain Fournier <alai...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>Remember that the cable is enormously strong and firmly anchored at both
>>ends
>
>Well I mostly agree with what you wrote but the cable is anchored at
>only one end.
Most elevator schemes put a counterweight at the top, which functions
quite effectively as an anchor.
Henry Spencer
The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> As with any engineered structure, it has to be designed for wind loads.
>> This is annoying but not prohibitively hard. Since only a very short
>> section of the cable -- the bottom 50km or so -- is exposed to wind loads,
>> you can add substantial amounts of mass to that section, if necessary,
>
>Uh...did you forget about the single-atom ions whizzing
>around in the ionosphere?
Similar answer: the region of altitudes in which this is a serious
problem is not large, so even a thick protective coating will not present
serious mass problems.
Radiation effects in the Van Allen belts are a more serious worry, because
the altitude range involved is rather larger, but they *probably* aren't
serious for the typical cable lifespan.
The real limiting factor on lifespan, even with provisions for repair, is
erosion by micrometeorites and orbital debris. You can wiggle the cable
to dodge big stuff in known orbits, but there is too much small stuff and
it's not trackable.
Paul R. Mays
"Henry Spencer" <he...@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:Hqp3A...@spsystems.net...
> In article <b1c7c1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
> >> As with any engineered structure, it has to be designed for wind loads.
> >> This is annoying but not prohibitively hard. Since only a very short
> >> section of the cable -- the bottom 50km or so -- is exposed to wind
loads,
> >> you can add substantial amounts of mass to that section, if necessary,
> >> without compromising the feasibility of the elevator...
> >
> >Uh...did you forget about the single-atom ions whizzing
> >around in the ionosphere?
>
> Similar answer: the region of altitudes in which this is a serious
> problem is not large, so even a thick protective coating will not present
> serious mass problems.
It will fall down, go boom....
E.R.
> It will fall down, go boom....
It will fail. Anything will, given time. Preventive Maint will take
care of premature failure. Long before an SE _will_ fail you can make
plans to retire the ribbon - cut the anchor and reel it up. That's
simplified, of course, but it need not be a problem.
And if it _does_ fail? It won't fall as a single ribbon. Depending
on where it breaks .. the bits higher up will burn up on reentry. The
bits lower down should shred into bits and rain across the ocean.
What's the problem?
ER
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"E.R." <economic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a11b144e.03123...@posting.google.com...
And in fact, much of it won't even re-enter depending on where it breaks.
Anything above the break will basically be flung into space.
Mike Wexler
> Similar answer: the region of altitudes in which this is a serious
> problem is not large, so even a thick protective coating will not present
> serious mass problems.
>
> Radiation effects in the Van Allen belts are a more serious worry, because
> the altitude range involved is rather larger, but they *probably* aren't
> serious for the typical cable lifespan.
>
> The real limiting factor on lifespan, even with provisions for repair, is
> erosion by micrometeorites and orbital debris. You can wiggle the cable
> to dodge big stuff in known orbits, but there is too much small stuff and
> it's not trackable.
It seems that you could mount sensors on the cable that would allow
you to detect stuff that was too small for the current sensors but
still big enough to be worth avoiding. The question is if you could
get the feedback time small enough (local thrusters) to take advantage
of the information. Note, like the other cases talked about here,
there are regions that have much more stuff than others (LEO? GTO?)
and you could probably concentrate the sensors there.
Also, it would be interesting to figure out how to detect and localize
damage. I could imagine a whole variety of techniques:
1) Detect the vibrations caused by impacts
2) Detect the change in wait in the cable from pieces of the cable
that were ablated away (probably too small an effect to be measurable)
3) The cable is probably made up of smaller strands. If the strands
can conduct electricity then you could transmit a small current down
each strand and detect if it reaches the other end. You could put
sensors/repeaters at regular intervals and detect both the strand and
the approximate location of damage.
4) You could attach strain cages to the individual strands. I assume
that if some strands were broken, the strain on them would go down and
the strain on the others would go up.
5) The elevator could have sensors to detect irregularities in the
cable.
It seems that this would be a critical engineering problem in buidling
these. Have any of the studies looked seriously at the damage
detection and repair issues?
Matt Giwer
> In article <b1c7c1-...@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>>As with any engineered structure, it has to be designed for wind loads.
>>>This is annoying but not prohibitively hard. Since only a very short
>>>section of the cable -- the bottom 50km or so -- is exposed to wind loads,
>>>you can add substantial amounts of mass to that section, if necessary,
>>>without compromising the feasibility of the elevator...
>>
>>Uh...did you forget about the single-atom ions whizzing
>>around in the ionosphere?
> Similar answer: the region of altitudes in which this is a serious
> problem is not large, so even a thick protective coating will not present
> serious mass problems.
And long before the elevator is built, diamond sheets will be available as shielding.
> Radiation effects in the Van Allen belts are a more serious worry, because
> the altitude range involved is rather larger, but they *probably* aren't
> serious for the typical cable lifespan.
> The real limiting factor on lifespan, even with provisions for repair, is
> erosion by micrometeorites and orbital debris. You can wiggle the cable
> to dodge big stuff in known orbits, but there is too much small stuff and
> it's not trackable.
--
The Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs is
headquartered in the United States giving the false
impression the nation referred to is the US.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2970
Henry Spencer
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Similar answer: the region of altitudes in which this is a serious
>> problem is not large, so even a thick protective coating will not present
>> serious mass problems.
>
>And long before the elevator is built, diamond sheets will be available
>as shielding.
Hardly necessary. Silica, Teflon, even just aluminum (in adequate depth)
make perfectly good protection against atomic-oxygen erosion.
Josh Gigantino
I've seen proposals for both anchored and un-anchored Earth ends. Some
engineers envision an anchor, via a ship like the "ribbon" near-term
proposal a few months ago, or hooked into an equatorial building.
Free-floating proposals would have the Earth end of the elevator
counterbalanced and dangling above the surface slightly - usually
inside a processing building. The free-floating idea has advantages
like being able to be lifted out of danger during the
once-in-a-century hurricanes or other disasters.
It seems that there is a lot of designs being floated, from the ribbon
design of Brad Edwards (NIAC & Highlift studies) to the more
megalithic proposals with 100+meter wide structures of woven fullerene
with dozens of elevators and thrusters running the length.
looking forward,
josh
Paul R. Mays
"Josh Gigantino" <giga...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:d5952843.03123...@posting.google.com...
It will fall down... go Boom...
Paul R. Mays
--------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhere in the Quantum State..
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
Richard Schumacher
Henry Spencer wrote:
> The real limiting factor on lifespan, even with provisions for repair, is
> erosion by micrometeorites and orbital debris. You can wiggle the cable
> to dodge big stuff in known orbits, but there is too much small stuff and
> it's not trackable.
What might be the best means of de-commissioning a cable? Build it with a
far-end counter weight, then just cut it at the ground and let it go?
Paul R. Mays
"Richard Schumacher" <no-...@thank-you.com> wrote in message
news:3FF36ECE...@thank-you.com...
No need... Place thrusters to guide reenter of upper parts
and change all documentation to notate new WMD system, DoD
>
>
Henry Spencer
Richard Schumacher <no-...@thank-you.com> wrote:
>> The real limiting factor on lifespan, even with provisions for repair, is
>
>What might be the best means of de-commissioning a cable? Build it with a
>far-end counter weight, then just cut it at the ground and let it go?
Almost certainly, the thing to do is to monitor the situation carefully,
use it to build its replacement when the margin starts to get thin, reduce
the tension on the old one, and finally have it dismantled by special
climbers positioned as necessary on the new one. You want to do this as
an orderly, controlled process, not just "cut 'er loose", to avoid
possible collisions with operational cables.
The tidiest approach to the dismantling would actually be to send one
special climber up the new cable, carrying a *big* cable reel. The weight
of the reel, and the cable accumulating on it, can be carried by the old
cable -- it is by definition able to support its own weight! -- with the
new cable serving only as a guide and a support against lateral loads.
The climber would need a lot of power, though, unless the ascent was quite
slow, and I'm not certain how feasible this is offhand.
The apparently-simpler alternative, reeling the cable in from the top,
requires accelerating the whole old cable to the chosen ascent velocity
all at once, which may be a somewhat tricky process unless it's done
*very* slowly.
(I suggest ending up with the cable mass at the top because mass in orbit
is always useful, if only as extra counterweight mass for new cables.)
Reeling the whole cable up into one roll may be too ambitious. The actual
size of such a roll is not prohibitively large, at least not for the
modest first-generation cables, but practical problems of power and cable
management may dictate doing it piecemeal.
Brad Guth
> Brad Guth wrote:
> >
> > Lo and behold, I happen to like my delusions,
> [snip]
>
> You see yourself this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
> The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete7.jpg
"Moon Dirt isn't just Moon Dirt, it's absolutely Everything Dirt"
Even though water might become a nice sort of lunar attribute to
discover, but it's the moon dirt that's invaluable for the survival of
humanity, as well as for the future of survivable space explorations.
The one absolute thing we can do efficiently from Earth, on behalf of
the moon, is exporting of water to the moon. With few individuals
needed on the surface or within the LSE-CM/ISS, water is not a
problem, especially with Earth's global warming ongoing and entirely
unchecked and only getting itself worse off, thus we've got way too
much water. Exporting it as slush hydrogen and/or h2o2 is simply an
alternative, whereas accommodating plain old h2o can be cheaply
delivered via robotic landers with absolutely no fear of losing
another astronaut nor chancing any contamination of the moon should
something go terribly wrong.
I have absolutely no doubts that once upon a time Mars had a
sufficient atmosphere, and surface water, thereby a warmer and
radiation protected environment, possibly even long enough to have
sustained either natural evolution and/or of some well intended
terraforming on behalf of establishing some life similar to human.
Unfortunately, there are certain limits to which life and of it's
DNA/RNA as we know it can coexist within the confines of what Mars has
had to offer for the past few thousand years, and certainly things are
not getting any better. Whereas Venus still offers a survivable
atmospheric buffer zone that's also loaded with all sorts of natural
energy opportunities.
The more the Mars core cools itself off, the worse becomes any
opportunity for that planet to revive itself, short of receiving a
massive infusion of artificial energy, such as what 1000 terawatts per
year as derived from our lunar He3 might have to offer.
The moon may have never sustained life, but it may have provided
itself as a truly long-range capable transporter and/or transponder of
life, even of life as we know it.
Actually, of what we may need to see accomplished first, I believe our
beloved GW Bush badly deserves a similar fate as JFK, or at least as
those of the World Trade Towers, though his partner in crime "Dick
Cheney" must absolutely go first, then another dozen or so other of
their mutual incest Borgs cloaked deep within the ranks need to
receive their just desert.
It certainly would have been damn nice if someone had administered
and/or bestowed the same degree of JFK honor upon Hitler, and then
mostly upon a good number his henchmen, as our world would certainly
have become a better place, though somewhat scientifically retarded
and a whole lot more crowded by Jewish folk, but at least I could feel
good and live with that aspect, quite possibly even becoming as a fine
upstanding Jew, unless there were a remainder of those nice Cathars to
be found, as knowing what little I do, I'd rather have become Cathar
unless the Pope was still encharge.
Some good readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm
The latest insults to this Mars/Moon injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm
Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
Brad Guth
we'll have a rather tough time of acquiring much of anything from our
moon, unless ESA or perhaps some Chinese operation is willing to sell
us their exports of 3He or He3.
Here's yet a little too much other food for thought, so more of the
same tit for tats regarding what our fearless warlord might be doing
in spite of himself, and there's going to be lots more to come.
Since our NASA is way more than just flat broke, and if going by the
way and methods our resident warlord has been running things amuck,
and at the current rate of expenditures, we'll not only be further
broke but begging the likes of Russia and China to help us out, might
even have to call upon the likes of North Korea and Cuba. So, for now
their most pressing "to do list" is for continued document shredding,
so that the taxpaying public can't ever learn how bad things are.
I believe ESA has absolutely no moral option but to beat the US as
well as for others to the moon, as well as for establishing their ESA
LSE-CM/ISS, and subsequent lunar communities situated mostly below the
surface.
I'll totally argue the point(s), that we can R&D plus send off at
least 100 long term and high reliability mission/probes per cost of
sending one astronaut to/from the moon. Even those of robotic lunar
surface deployments at no more than 1% the human interfaced cost, and
thereby at zero astronaut risk.
My limited focus upon getting a robotic TRACE-II, of even ten fold
greater mass than TRACE if need be, as for that remaining stationed at
Venus L2 as providing a badly needed interplanetary communications
transponder, this task can be accomplished for 1% of any manned lunar
mission, and not even 0.01% of a manned Mars mission. Of course, a
TRACE-II could have been deployed and stationkeeping at VL2 as of a
decade ago, but what do I know?
With further regard to the worth of doing our moon; of any decent moon
base simply isn't worth it's salt without a damn good lunar space
elevator, such as the LSE-CM/ISS.
Moon He3/3He is there for the taking, thankfully our wonderful GW Bush
is super terrific at such energy takings. For that alone I'll back his
Moon or Bust notions long before there'll be any sympathy for the
likes of a frozen and irradiated to death Mars.
Truth however is in the eyes of the blind beholder, as snookered
Americans perhaps. Though the Moon is apparently all ours for the
taking, and take He3 we well.
The GW Bush moon or bust; or just how incredibly happenstance is our
moon?
Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden,
there's our nifty moon, just sitting there, absolutely overloaded with
He3 or 3He.
Sorry about the initial overload, but trust me, it's all worth it.
The absolute truth(s) about history, as well as for what's current and
of what's to come, has been and well continue being skewed in order to
suit those in power, much like religion and of evolution is all about
lies, of liars telling whatever lies suit their hidden agendas and
ulterior motives. Whereas a better form of government, and thereby
science, would obviously be truth; go fish!
For an example; pure evolution isn't worth squat up against
terraforming, only as an afermarket adaptation in order to survive in
spite of mistakes made by your creator, DNA/RNA or whatever. Such as,
I'd certainly evolve myself along and adapt if my planet were going
greenhouse, though to listen to the pro-NASA folks with regard to
anything Venus, that's just not going to happen, even though for
perfectly odd reasons (I think money and job security), just the
opposit seems to apply towards Mars.
Unfortunately, much like Hitler, or much worse being the Pope/Cathar
fiasco, the GW Bush space initiative represents yet another for-real
threat to humanity, and of whatever natural evolution isn't going to
fix that unless evolution somehow manages the extinction of GW Bush on
behalf of humanity, as otherwise the future threat is as real as his
personal war in Iraq, and it'll soon get as bloody as need be. Thereby
the Bush space initiative is a thoroughly bad notion, although the
notion of going for our moon on behalf of humanity isn't such a bad
notion, in fact it's a darn good idea that's way past due.
There's been the rather unfortunate tit for tats that created the
likes of 9/11 and of flight-800, plus another ongoing and rather pesky
and costly war in Iraq, all because of Salem bin Laden and of the
close business associations with our resident warlord "GW Bush". It's
all about the hoarding of energy as well as future applied
technologies, possibly even ET technology. It's absolutely imperative
as to keeping this oil off the spot market, especially of oil that's
been outside the American cartel.
Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden,
there's a light at the end of this tunnel.
It seems a few too many folks have overlooked an important truth or
self right, that of following a lying bastard and hiding within a
collective of energy sucking Borgs is obviously become the moral right
of every snookered American, yet no one owes us that right.
The GW Bush moon; or just how incredibly happenstance is our moon?
At least the ulterior lunar focus for the moment should draw deeply
our dastardly attentions away from Cuba, if nothing else it'll drain
whatever reserves for NSA/DoD agendas, while giving us folks a great
deal to think about, and of others to worry about.
The GW Bush moon-base odds are actually relatively piss poor. Just for
starters, we all realize that our resident warlord "GW Bush" lied as
usual (covering some privet agenda plus whatever ulterior motives),
such as about all those WMD, just like those of his educational "high
standards and accountability" lies, that's only been superseded by his
ultimate "so what's the difference" policy (he must have been
referring to all those dead Iraqi souls that don't matter, as well as
the Trade Towers fiasco that he and of his close Salem bin Laden
business partner had supposedly absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with). Notice how the "all knowing" Dr. H.K. has vanished into thin
air ever since 9/11.
Just because our moon has become the most recent GW Bush topic of the
hour, I'm not switching myself from the far greater importance of
discoveries on Venus over to any moon tactic for the mere sport of it,
as I've been there and done that for a good year's worth of trying to
focus folks (snookered fools) away from the ESE fiasco, over to the
obtainable and doable LSE-CM/ISS alternative, as of what the moon
offers is simply an incredibly terrific gateway to other worlds, such
as Mars and Venus, as well as for providing Earth sciences plus a
bloody jackpot worth of He3/3eH energy that's just sitting there,
waiting to being scooped up and shipped off to mother Earth.
Speaking just a little off topic; of other life within our universe
that doesn't have to continually lie; Sirius is certainly not only
within our universe, but I believe 80,000 years ago it was situated
damn close by.
Within the following rant, I've stipulated upon quite a number of
"what ifs" pertaining greatly to other life on Venus, among
accomplishing a few essential lunar things along the way. Elsewhere
are links to specific LSE-CM/ISS issues, although you'll have to
disconnect from your Borg collective before reading such, as otherwise
the collective may have to terminate your node, and that could hurt
worse than the "Blue Screen of Death".
"Sirius, Earth, Moon and Venus, preferably without GW Bush"
In that order, and in that priority.
In other words, first came Sirius, then we manage to screw up Earth
(almost got that one nailed), then onto our moon for a little He3/3He
snatching, and finish off our supper with the pillaging of Venus. We
don't much have to include the likes of Mars because, it's way to
spendy as well as too CO2 generating upon Earth as for sustaining any
significant to/from enterprise of pillaging, and besides it's already
a thoroughly dead horse (not that folks hadn't managed to live there
once upon a time), except for the remains of some highly
advanced/mutant microbes of which sub-freezing them into dry-ice and
of irradiating those to death probably hasn't quite serialized their
innards, and of those pesky diehard Mars microbes (in our infinite
wisdom or lack thereof), we'll likely be bringing those suckers back
to Earth via some future probe in order to prove how pathetically
stupid we actually are, so go figure.
Never to fear; as if it should perchance turn out that I'm the least
bit wrong about the sanity or perhaps utter insanity, of some folks
going to Mars that is, as then I'll simply impose our resident
warlord's approved "so what's the difference" policy. As certainly
whatever's left of Earth's humanity wont be any worse off for ware,
after all, of my previous efforts at stipulating "I told you so" about
how thoroughly frozen and irradiated to death Mars is, if that simply
hasn't sunk in, nor about how little free energy awaits those arriving
at Mars, but what the hell do I know?
If I were as dumbfounded, and as much of a total moron bastard as our
resident warlord, I guess I'd certainly have Earth's humanity headed
for the likes of Mars. After all, from all of the previous probe
information and of what's new, well, there really isn't anything new,
other than it's still damn cold and thoroughly irradiated to death, as
well as sufficiently strewn with all the expected meteorites and
shards, and as always, being of the most time consuming and spendy as
all get out for just getting there, much less for the task of our
retrieving anything.
Our Unique Moon;
It's rather unfortunate how freaking little we seem to know about our
extremely unique moon, of why it's even where it is, and of it's mass
being so entirely different than Earth, yet thermal nuclear heated
from within and of so influencing Earth in such an entirely positive
sort of way, as well as somewhat intentionally contributing to our
well being as a human race, yet it's been taking advantage of tidal
forces so as to insure that it's never going to come crashing down,
not in a trillion-billion years, not even if we devised a way of
pulling out 5 terawatts continuously between us, as that's merely one
form of unique force that's been so special about our uniquely
synchronized moon.
This one-of-a-kind moon offers us an incredibly stable gravity-well
null point, as an ideal LSE-CM/ISS accommodation that's obviously
situated between Earth and the moon, at roughly 84% of the distance
from Earth, or 16% of the distance towards Earth, with a mere 2.25%
variance at that. It's also the one and only recorded moon that's
rotating itself in perfect harmony, as in absolute synchronization
with it's mother World. All and all, that's better than rolling
different dice on every shot and getting exactly the very same 4&3 as
7's a million times in a row. Not such bad odds.
I mean, how incredibly happenstance is that?
Finding water on the moon isn't such a big factor. With Earth's global
warming, expedited along by GW Bush himself, we'll soon have way more
water than you can possibly shake a flaming stick at, and thankfully
today we've got numerous ways of robotically delivering terrific
amounts of said water to the moon. Actually sending it as pure h2o2
would do lunar and LSE-CM/ISS operations a lot more good. In the good
old days of Apollo, if speaking of a one-way ticket, we could deliver
36,000 lbs worth of whatever, whereas today that figure should be
72,000 lbs worth. And BTW; the lunar environment is absolutely ideal
for that water being in the stabile form of frozen h2o2, whereas
receiving whatever He3 infusions couldn't hurt.
The next issue or topic of worth is that of Venus, of it's environment
being what it is, greenhouse hot and nasty, though not by a long shot
being outside the ballpark of supporting intelligent life, unless
you're only considering upon the pathetic slim-mold based forms of
bigoted life that's here on Earth, especially of those that can no
longer think for themselves, having to depend upon their pagan worship
of skewed as well as conditional laws of physics, as well as reliance
upon numerous toilet bowl morals, as such being easily snookered and
thereby representing the crude forms of life that can't hardly survive
here on Earth without doing far more harm than good, much like dumb
and dumber except on steroids.
Fortunately, the thick and robust atmosphere of Venus is simply chuck
full of benefits, as well as raw energy via thermal as well as
powerful kinetics from just their vertical differentials, then there
are simply loads of surface geothermals and of most likely a crust
that holding onto all sorts of mineral deposits. Those relatively cool
nighttime clouds contain megatonnes of H2SO4, thus H2O, thereby all
sorts of chemical and subsequent reaction cocktails of various
outcomes are possible. With said energy and of the sorts of natural
element resources available, only an absolute idiot moron couldn't
make a go of it.
Of course, it only adds further insult to all the previous injuries by
way of my uncovering a rather significant group of structures, of a
significant community that's way too rational, as in being potentially
life supportive functional as having been established as artificial
(as in man made or perhaps more likely lizard folk made), hardly being
the least bit natural unless those pesky laws of physics as well as
for gravity took a hike for at least a few hundred years, which
according to our NASA community of "all knowing" Borg wizards is
absolutely suggesting what must have happened, somewhat like why all
those Apollo moon pictures are so skewed and why their lunar
reflective index was so incredibly bright, as well as for why there's
so few meteorites and of their shards strewn about, much less there
being any recent contributions of micro-meteorites to deal with, nor
is there more radiation exposure than for taking a distant walk around
Chernobyl.
Of another keen interest is that of Sirius may not be so happenstance,
though 80,000 years ago it was certainly darn close, thus extremely
bright and most likely the biggest thing in our sky, bar none, as in
illumination appearing at least as big as our sun but so much
brighter, and that's certainly damn big, though 80,000 years is a mere
geological drop in the bucket. Since then it's been moving away at
roughly 20 miles per second, whereas today it's over 8.5 lightyears
off, and still Sirius represents the next biggest and baddest star(s)
in our sky, and since it's so bright and far away, our best
instruments can only detect the Sirius/a&b, as Sirius/c and of
whatever planets are only known to the Dogon. Go figure that one out.
Seems as though it is as likely as not that planets within the zone of
life, like Mars, Earth and Venus could have been those terraformed by
creators, thus by well intending folks that did whatever they could,
to see that their efforts were not in vain. Natural disasters and
perhaps creator mistakes (no one's perfect) may have plaid a role, but
mankind has more than influenced if not sealed the fate of Earth,
especially of lately, with our frequent energy wars and of pagan
worshipings, now we're off snipe hunting for those WMD in order to
justify our warlords taking of thousands of innocent lives. At least
the only one of us that should feel better off is the Pope, as for
what their Catholic church did to those nice Cathars was truly
despicable, as certainly representing nothing at all like what any
reasonable terraforming creators would have intended. As how freaking
sick would you have to be if you were some creator that intentionally
constructed such god offal DNA/RNA and/or manipulated your beings for
such a horrific task. So obviously, mankind is 99% responsible for our
own fate, as there's only so much that a remote world of creators can
accomplish from afar, especially from as far away as Sirius.
I know, I know, there I go again, slipping myself way off the deep end
by suggesting that I'm sufficiently right and that you're the one
that's been snookered and subsequently skewed so way off base. Well,
what can I say, short of getting myself entirely reprogrammed and
connected back into your Borg collective, so that I'll follow our
fearless WMD snipe hunting leaders off the nearest cliff, or back into
their cesspool of life, is always an option.
The fact that privet agendas and ulterior motives have been in full
swing for decades, most recently based entirely upon our dwindling
global energy reserves, our leaders having fought many wars (hot and
cold) over whom has what and of most importantly of whom gets access
to it, and/or selectively partitioning out shares of profits from the
spoils of said energy. This lethal tug-of-war is simply what's been
responsible for the most recent waves of carnage and of collateral
damage, with the undertow of powers struggling to grasp all the energy
rings and then some. Well guess what, the moon has become the next
best thing on the map, as energy wise the moon is by far offering the
biggest energy pot and simultaneous strategic starwars outpost over
the entire Earth, so much so that it'll likely supersede our need of
taking Cuba, of which we've previously tried seven times and badly
failed seven times. Although, with the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole
element reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth, hosting a few of those
100 GW 0.5 milliradian laser cannons, we could light off an individual
Cuban cigar if we wanted to.
If you think you can contribute to these issues, or to this novel of
life and consequences, I'm all ears, though I've been told that
there's not all that much between them ears because, my Borg
collective interface has been broken down for at least the past three
years and counting, though your's is probably still fully functioning
and synchronized to the collective.
Some good but difficult readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-SaddamHusseinAndTheSandPirates.htm
The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm
Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
Robert Munck
wrote:
>In article <3FF36ECE...@thank-you.com>,
>Richard Schumacher <no-...@thank-you.com> wrote:
>>What might be the best means of de-commissioning a cable?
>
>Almost certainly, the thing to do is to monitor the situation carefully,
>use it to build its replacement when the margin starts to get thin, reduce
>the tension on the old one, and finally have it dismantled ...
Given the costs and risks, the first SE will probably be used
IMMEDIATELY to build a second one. Launching a new SE when you
don't have an existing one is extremely costly and time-consuming.
I think it's likely that SEs will proliferate quickly, a dozen or
more in the decade after First Climb.
Fusing new CNT material to an aging SE will be easy and cheap, but
if one does somehow wear thin, a better bet might be to detach it
from its Earth-side anchor, use a climber on another SE to move this
one's center of mass well out from GEO, and fling it out to Mars, to
be used as an SE there where less strength is needed.
Bob Munck
brad...@gmail.com
> Lunar Space Elevator and of SAR imaging; Truth or Consequences
>
> Unlike so many objecting to absolutely anything lunar, or much worse
> Venus, I'd prefer to be discussing the pros and cons and/or learning
> of technology, using as few words as possible that pertain to the
> "what ifs" and of whatever "can be for certain" accomplished as
> humanly obtainable goals. Of course, if you simply can't stand my poor
> syntax or decipher the context of what I'm trying to say, I think it's
> your problem because, I certainly know exactly what I'm driving at,
> just can't always type it out the way I'm thinking, which is more
> often than not in reverse of the way you think. Unfortunately, I
> believe that sort of makes me smarter than yourself.
>
> Although, so much of what I'm hearing is of others crying over spilt
> milk, such as over my poor syntax or insufficient scientific notations
> and, otherwise I'm hearing just their sanctimonious justifications for
> sustaining the current levels of orchestrated "spin" and "damage
> control". As for my addressing such warm and fuffy flak, I'll need to
> regress a wee bit into their deeply physic wonderland of those
> seemingly opposed to reality, which is not of any profound statement
> suggesting that I'm always right about everything, as I'll gladly take
> being 10% right. Since I know for a fact that I've made mistakes and,
> that I'll most likely make a tonne more, that's quite different from
> the perspective of those living a lie and, then further lying about
> that lie (sort of like asking the Pope to discuss Cathars and, he'll
> reply by saying something like; what Cathars?).
>
> Here I've been offering more worthwhile topics than all of what's been
> posted to date, of doable agendas that are entirely above-board and,
> of all things within our expertise, as well as within our existing
> technology, not to mention being dirt cheap, of those ideas I believe
> are worthy of further consideration. Although, all that I've seen and
> heard from those opposing is essentially their absolute immoral
> arrogance towards all of humanity, or of at least anyone that's
> opposing the likes of their cost+ go-for-broke Earth Space Elevator or
> bust campaign.
>
> OOPS, I suppose now I've hurt your feelings. OOPS again, I forgot,
> pro-NASA Borgs probably don't have any true feelings, as you're merely
> being a collective opponent against absolutely anything or anyone
> being the least bit anti-NASA, all the while you certainly don't seem
> to be offering any justifiable morality for the sorts of agendas
> that'll risk trillions and subsequently accomplishing their intended
> task of unnecessary terminating lives on Earth. You'll notice, I
> haven't even suggested that we can't possibly do the Earth based Space
> Elevator, though I've noted that it's going to be extremely expensive
> (at minimum 10 fold more than is being specified), still astronaut
> risky and perhaps decades if not another half century down the road
> and, it'll still not provide the necessary CO2 relief for delivering
> those necessary tonnes of radiation shielding into GSO and beyond.
>
> Associated with our accomplishing another lunar sort of thing, here's
> more data upon the SAR imaging with only a slight steroid boost from
> the moon;
>
> It's been months since I've evaluated the German space team results of
> the shuttle-bay SAR imaging of Earth, where they obtained 1.5 meter
> resolution that was achieved from having those image receiving pixels
> on the 60 meter boom or tower, while cruising along at 225 km. So,
> lets see if I can get this part right, or at least right enough
>
> In other words, the village idiot method of reverse engineering for
> improving upon the 60 meter mast/boom SAR imaging technology is as
> follows;
>
> If those aperture pixels were 1024 x 1024
> If for every 150 km = 1 meter resolution/pixel
> If that was obtained from a 60 meter mast/boom
>
> Instead of the 60 meter mast/boom, if using the moon at 384,500 km
>
> Replacing the mast/boom by said moon, offers an image multiplyer of
> 6.4^6
>
> If Earth VLA transmitters were utilized in place of shuttle array = X
> 10
>
> If those SAR imaging pixels were upgraded from 1024 to 4096, that's =
> X 4
>
> I believe that so far we're at 2.56^8 worth of further magnification
>
> Venus resolution at 41^6 km = (41^6 km / 150 km) / 2.56^8 = 1.066 mm
>
> Mars resolution at 56^6 km = (56^6 km / 150 km) / 2.56^8 = 1.458 mm
>
> Obviously the radar frequency itself becomes the limitation at such
> close distances, so that the actual minimum resolution is going to
> become limited to 1/2 wavelength, or perhaps as little as 10 mm
> depending upon the radar frequency and of the number of looks per
> pixel. Thus, we obviously need to have a distance greater than 400+^6
> km before the resolution starts exceeding the 1/2 wavelength aspects
> of any SAR imaging capability.
>
> I believe that I'm being conservative about those Earth VLA radar
> transmitters obtaining their 10 fold advantage, as I'm thinking we
> should be capable of not only greatly enhancing the energy per look
> but also of the focus, perhaps a factor of 100 fold is more likely and
> quite possibly a 1000X can be created if a sufficient number of
> globally spaced VLA transmitters were networked and implemented. This
> greater VLA source of radar transmitters and of signal reflectors
> might be asking a bit much but, at least it's Earth based (literally
> eliminating astronaut burn-out), easily configured and, there's almost
> no limit as to the pulse/peak energy that can be delivered and/or
> subsequently reflected back at the lunar based aperture.
>
> Utilizing the lunar space elevator CM and CCM as another SAR variation
> that's certainly worth doing, though obviously not nearly as
> magnifying but, there's absolutely no measurable atmospherics diluting
> the signal, so the results could be refined into being as good if not
> better.
>
> CO2 is here to stay;
> That other nasty part of my argument pertaining to our existing and
> proposed future methods of mission deployments creating too much CO2.
> That data came from several others including a few NASA moderated
> documents, that if you're honestly accounting for the manufacturing of
> various substances and items, of all the necessary processes and
> assembly and ultimately of launching such into GSO is worth 100 times
> in new CO2 created/deposited for Earth, that's creating 100 tonnes of
> CO2 per each and every tonne of whatever delivered.
>
> Not all that surprisingly; The sort of folks like Earl Colby, Jerry
> Irvine and Brian Dunbar opposing, circumventing and/or bashing the
> lunar space elevator issues are of the very same Borg like collective
> that's opposing other life NOT as we know it, as perchance existing on
> Venus. This being where the opposition uses their precious science and
> laws of physics to continually qualify upon all of their ambitions,
> irregardless of whatever outrageous the cost, of whatever astronaut
> risk and/or of time-delay impact, to otherwise substantiate why
> investing tens to hundreds of trillions into their Earth Space
> Elevator is somehow worth the carnage, while oddly at the same time
> excluding upon the implication of those very same sciences and laws of
> physics whenever they're applied to anything lunar or Venus.
> Apparently their science and of those laws of physics do not apply to
> the moon or Venus, just Earth and Mars, or of whatever Hubbble is
> looking at.
>
> Oddly, we can manage to send multiple and relatively complex
> interactive probes off to Mars, cost be damned, though we've not
> implemented one cost effective interactive probe associated with our
> moon, nothing thermal, nothing of radiation levels, no radio
> transponding, no radar imaging, no acoustics nor of seismic data, no
> cameras nor observing data gathering of any sort, oddly there's been
> absolutely nothing whatsoever, even though we had adequate technology
> prior to the final Apollo missions to have deployed any number of such
> items and, of countless opportunities ever since and, as for regarding
> those laser reflectors (somewhat invisible like all those WMDs) that
> can't possibly reflect as many laser photons as the raw 20 km diameter
> [314.16^6 m2] target zone of those infamous laser shot examples that
> merely proves how the 10+% reflective index by itself is way more than
> sufficient, where even a modern 2 km laser illuminated zone [3.14^6
> m2] offers sufficient overkill as compared to that of any 2 m2 worth
> of perfect reflectors, no matters how efficient they supposedly were).
>
> Probes and transponders can be and have in fact been engineered and
> constructed to survive the truly horrific space irradiation levels,
> that would otherwise adversely impact if not kill off any astronaut.
> I've learned that our electro-mechanical and electronics technology
> for such robotic missions of today offers sufficient thermal endurance
> to survive -279°F (100°K) to recently exceeding 1000°F (811°K)
> environments, yet the ongoing arguments against deploying an
> interactive Venus nighttime probe, or even a lunar/SAR receiving
> module are blatantly in opposition to such ideas, where I believe this
> is only because of the political cloak and dagger cold-war aspects,
> and/or of subversive policy implications that perchance our infamous
> NASA has slipped another cog, or worse.
>
> How conspicuously odd, or perhaps how conspicuously arrogant can these
> pagan God worshipers get. The continuing illogic of unnecessarily
> endangering astronauts seems unlimited as well as unmitigated, but
> more so evil or perhaps ulterior is their excluding 90% of Earth's
> population from receiving life essential services and/or resources is
> about as immoral (Pope/Cathar) as it gets, while they remain insistent
> upon creating such massive new tonnage of artificial CO2 as a result
> of following their skewed focus of expediting global warming in their
> process of implementing global domination, which seems almost
> criminal, as in premeditated 1st degree murder, as these folks (NASA's
> space wizards or perhaps Borgs) can't possibly go about claiming that
> they're smarter than you or myself, while at the same time not fore
> knowing of the direct carnage inflicted by their actions and/or
> inactions, or from the actions of those they openly and knowingly
> support.
>
> Unlike those seemingly opposing the honest future of mankind, I'm
> looking for intellectual resources, for the honest if not critical
> review and thereby best application of what's possible, within the
> limits of existing technology and limited resources, while all others
> opposing such functionality as apparent nonsense, and of otherwise
> opposing just about everything under the sun (especially of anything
> that's not their idea), have been siding with their skewed sense or
> allusions of history, as well as their skewed science and skewed
> physics, where this has sort of become the "proof positive" that I've
> uncovered the holy grail of yet another lingering pro NSA/DoD cesspool
> of our cold-war "status quo" mentality, of which our NASA intends to
> cloak on behalf of until hell freezes over. Unfortunately, with all of
> this ongoing global warming build, hell simply isn't ever going to
> freeze, it's only going to get hotter.
>
> I'll suppose, it's covertly possible that by creating a legacy of
> multi-trillion dollar debts, for all the world's great grand children
> of the future is perfectly OK by someone others standards, as equally
> choked down with all the excessive CO2 and subsequently the entire
> world suffering from serious global warming is somehow going to become
> just the ticket these pro-NASA fools are suggesting is needed. Perhaps
> the sooner our global resources are squandered, the sooner their
> already rich partners in crime (like those already wealthy cotton
> growers that are about to receive another 18 billion dollar per year
> subsidy) will inherit the Earth, or of whatever is left of it.
>
> If perchance you're less interested in all the doom and gloom aspects,
> but otherwise concerned about what's actually possible, as in humanly
> obtainable from the existing talents and resources of today, then this
> lunar space elevator page should be of some interest, of what's been
> most recently uploaded and updated having to do with tether energy
> potentials:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
>
> As an alternative space elevator that I'm opposed to paying for, but
> that I'll concur can be accomplished if there's no financial
> limitations and there's all the time in the world and continuing
> Taliban risk factors are ignored:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-edwards-se.htm
>
> This following link is featuring the attributes and benefits of the
> lunar based SAR receiving module, a page that could always use another
> update, as in incorporating some of your expertise:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-sar.htm
>
> There's certainly a great deal more to say, of which I simply can't
> seem to say enough, or perhaps I've said way too much already. For
> those claiming that I'm the "all knowing" culprit, or the village
> idiot from hell, sorry folks, that's hardly the case. As more than
> likely than not, I'm somewhat like one of those addaptive corrections
> to those funny mirrors at the carnival that you've been paying good
> money to be looking at for decades, only seeing a highly distorted
> view of reality. Now that I'm offering a relatively flat
> (non-distorting) mirror of what's possible and of what's humanly
> obtainable, God forbid, perhaps you should actually do something
> constructive or meaningful for others.
>
> Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA 1-253-8576061
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com
A very old and outdated topic for testing how G+ deals with it.