lunar centric orbit?
blart
but what are the parameters of lunar centric orbit?
where could you site an orbiting moon base so that it was stationary above
the surface?
if you could then I suggest that it may be far easier to make a moonstalk
elevator because of lesser stresses involved and lack of atmosphere to drag
on the stalk
no_one
only "selenestationary" orbit is at the earth it self!
"blart" <bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9yxcf.13293$Hj2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>given that the moon keeps one face to the earth; I would assume that the
>only "selenestationary" orbit is at the earth it self!
L1 and L2 also fit the bill.
>> where could you site an orbiting moon base so that it was stationary above
>> the surface?
-- Roy L
Alan Anderson
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:06:06 GMT, "no_one" <no_...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >given that the moon keeps one face to the earth; I would assume that the
> >only "selenestationary" orbit is at the earth it self!
>
> L1 and L2 also fit the bill.
As do L4 and L5.
Brad Guth
The ME-L1/EM-L2 is about as "lunar centric" of an orbit as it gets.
Although fully interactive in a good sort of way, this mutual
gravity-well offers us one heck of an energy efficient 'sweet spot'
worth of a parallel satellite parking zone for the future LSE-CM/ISS,
that's getting just downright nifty and about as easy for keeping an
eye upon as it gets.
Most everything necessary for establishing and maintaining this
station-keeping position can be effectively managed via terrestrial
ground-control. Hell bells folks, this could even be a 4H club amateur
science project, along with the right software and just a dial-up
internet connection should be sufficient for most any PC to manage the
entire station-keeping requirements and of accomplishing all sort of
Earth/moon related science. All that this sort of platform needs to
incorporate is a good Rn breeder reactor, whereas Ra226-->Rn222, thus
LRn gets briefly stored and then LRn-->Rn-->ion thrust seems like a
win-win sort of reliable form of ion thrust for managing this platform
like a slow-motion ping pong ball within this interactive ME-L1/EM-L2
zone.
Could yourself or perhaps from others contributing their expertise
suggest as to exactly where that nullification zone is at any given
time within the cycle of our moon, as having to orbit along with the
somewhat off-centered and rotating Earth influence while also having to
deal with the sun and, of every 19 months having another pull
contributed by Venus just for keeping things a bit interesting. Upon
average at the Earth/moon distance of 384,400 km it's supposedly
located at roughly 60,000 km off the lunar deck, or 16% of the distance
away from the moon, although that may or may not be the case.
BTW; That's only a five body equation if we're having to include
anything as for the satellite platform mass. It becomes a 6 body
equation if having to include the lunar anchored tethers and, it gets
into a 7+ body equation if there's a tether dipole element involved. Of
course, there could also be a few interactive variables as to various
automated/robotic items associated along with the LSE-CM/ISS, in which
case a CRAY super-computer might have to get involved.
Brad Guth
~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
William Mook
put to good use.
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/papers/lo_ross_2001.pdf
More popularized versions of the same information;
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html
http://plus.maths.org/issue36/features/dartnell/
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit.html
blart
L1 is 61500km above surface of moon
so what is projection of L1 on Moon - where is it, crudely?
disregarding nutation and all?
Tranquillitatus?
Perhaps a peak to anchor the moonstalk to?
What are the dynamics of a moonstalk to L1 as opposed to an earthstalk?
the L5 song (chorus)
Home, home on Lagrange,
Where the space debris always collects,
We possess, so it seems, two of Man's greatest dreams:
Solar power and zero-gee sex.
cheers
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4372b168...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
Brad Guth
>as well... which can be put to good use.
squat.
Since we still haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander, plus there are so
many other perfectly valid reasons, whereas such there's no viable
alternative but for establishing and using a lunar space elevator.
Thanks for all these old but terrific links. May I further ask;
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~shane/papers/lo_ross_2001.pdf
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit1.html
http://plus.maths.org/issue36/features/dartnell/
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_techorbit.html
Why are you avoiding any personal contributions as to the LL-1/ME-L1
zone that's offering us such an absolute sweet-spot although
interactive zone for the LSE-CM/ISS to coexist within?
You seem to be so all-knowing, in that I can't imagine a wizard like
yourself not knowing a thing or two as to various ways of establishing
and utilizing the LL-1/ME-L1 and of the LSE-CM/ISS.
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>but what are the parameters of lunar centric orbit?
centric orbit".
Even those links provided by "William Mook" are remaining as illusive
as to sharing the truth and thereby failing to provide the exact
distances involved are why it's still nearly anyone's SWAG. That is
unless you've got one of those Einstein brains and/or a fully software
configured parallel supercomputer in order to work with all of the
variables.
As I'd contributed before; The LL1 or ME-L1/EM-L2 zone is offering
about as "lunar centric" of any artificial satellite orbit as it gets,
as an energy efficient halo orbiting zone for an untethered satellite,
to that of an interactive station-keeping consideration for a fully
tethered LSE alternative.
Although being a fully interactive zone in a good sort of way, this
mutual LL1 gravity-well offers us one heck of an energy efficient
'sweet-spot' worth of a parallel satellite parking zone for
accommodating the future Chinese LSE-CM/ISS, that's getting such things
just downright nifty and about as easy for keeping an eye upon as it
gets.
Most everything that's necessary for establishing and maintaining this
station-keeping position can be effectively managed via terrestrial
ground-control. Hell bells folks, this could even be flown as 4H club
or even Grade School amateur science project, along with the right
software and just a dial-up internet connection should be sufficient
for most any PC to manage the entire station-keeping requirements and
of accomplishing all sort of Earth/moon related science.
All that this sort of platform needs to incorporate is a good
Radon(Rn222) breeder reactor, whereas Radiun(Ra226)-->Rn222, thus LRn
gets briefly stored and then LRn-->Rn-->ion thrust seems like a win-win
sort of reliable form of ion thrust for managing this platform like a
slow-motion ping pong ball within this interactive ME-L1/EM-L2 zone.
Could yourself or perhaps from other wizards contributing their
expertise suggest as to exactly where that nullification zone is at any
given time within the month by month cycle of our moon, as having to
orbit along with the somewhat off-centered and rotating Earth gravity
ant tidal influences while also having to deal with the sun and, of
every 19 months having another time extended pull contributed by Venus
just for keeping things a bit interesting. Upon average at the
Earth/moon distance of 384,400 km is supposedly having this LL1 located
at roughly 60,000 km off the lunar deck, or 16% of the Earth/moon
distance away from the lunar deck, although without further input for
the wizards of this usenet, as such that raw estimate may or may not be
the case.
BTW; That's only involving a five body equation if we're having to
include anything as for the satellite platform mass which could range
anywhere from a few initial tonnes to a rather considerable worth of
megatonnes if not a gigatonne to work with. It only becomes a 6 body
equation if having to include the lunar anchored tethers and, it gets
into an interesting 7+ body equation if there's an interactive tether
dipole element involved that's reaching to within 25,000 km of mother
Earth. Of course, there could also be a few other interactive variables
as to various automated/robotic items associated along with the
LSE-CM/ISS, in which case a full blown CRAY supercomputer might have to
Brad Guth
I believe LL1/ME-L1 is actually a bit closer to residing upon average
at 60,000 km above the lunar deck. Although, I can't seem to even
loacte that info from other than what has been NASA certified.
Therefore, the actual interactive nullification zone could be even
closer to the moon, especially if that zone is having to be occupied
with several thousand or actually megatonns tonnes worth of a given
CM/ISS satellite.
>Perhaps a peak to anchor the moonstalk to?
Instead of whatever peak, think big and rather spacious geode pocket
that's sufficiently deep underground, and if possible still holding a
cash of saltwater might become another good thing.
Alex Terrell
blart wrote:
> oke dokey
>
> L1 is 61500km above surface of moon
> so what is projection of L1 on Moon - where is it, crudely?
> disregarding nutation and all?
> Tranquillitatus?
> Perhaps a peak to anchor the moonstalk to?
> What are the dynamics of a moonstalk to L1 as opposed to an earthstalk?
>
Scroll down from here and you'll see a map.
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Routemap%20-%20lunar%20option7.htm#_Toc113893191
Alex
William Mook
Copyright (c) 2005
WIlliam Mook
I replied to a question - I don't see how that can be construed as
avoiding contributing to the discussion.
Here's more about Lagrange points...
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
http://www.freemars.org/l5/aboutl5.html
A space elevator on the moon is an interesting topic. I can wax
poetic about that.
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322
A skyhook for earth massing 600,000 tons would be able to lift 100 tons
according to the reports in the post given above.
A space elevator weighing in at 7,500 tons would lift 100 tons - from
three points on Earth once every 61 minutes and place it in a 9,500 km
high orbit 122 minutes later (there are 2 ends to the elevator whipping
around a center at 4,250 km - orbiting the Earth.)
The difference between a skyhook and a space elevator are the skyhook
is stationary relative to the Earth, and the space elevator is in an
orbit around the Earth and spins so the ends come down into the Earth's
upper atmosphere nearly stationary and end up in an orbit 9,500 km
high.
A skyhook for Mars is possible, and weighs less than the one for Earth
due to loer gravity. A skyhook for the moon going to either L1 or L2
for the Earth-Moon system - is also possible. Space elevators are
possible for any planet rotating or not.
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/scasci.txt
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1987/skyhook.ltx
Building a skyhook or space elevator system can occur in many ways.
The simplest series of events would be;
1) BUILD SPACESHIPS - Construction of a super Orion spacecraft using
micro-fission nuclear triggers made from old atomic weapons materials
compressed by any of a variety of inertial confinement fusion
techniques - these triggers detonate Lithium-6 Deuteride fusion fuel.
This "Orion Lite" produces 1/1000th the pollution of the older Orion
designs, and a short period of launches - one launch per ship from
Earth - the ship never to return- should be sustainable. After a space
elevator is established, then the Orions can be built on orbit.
What's a super Orion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion
satellite midrange super
Orion
Ship diameter 17-20 m 40 m 400 m
Ship mass 300 t 1-2000 t 8,000,000 t
Number of bombs 540 1080 1080
bomb mass 0.22 t 0.37-0.75 t 3000 t
Over half the ship mass makes it to orbit. So, we can see that a
600,000 ton Skyhook and a 7,500 space elevator for Earth - as well as
space elevators and skyhooks for the moon and Mars - and space
elevators for all the inner planets - would both be directly and
immediately possible after construction of a single Orion super sized
spacecraft.
So, this would be step 1.
2) BUILD SPACE ELEVATORS - AND DEPLOY THEM - Build super strong tapered
cables of the appropriate length, roll them up into the super sized
Orions and put them in place. Please note that an 8,000,000 ton super
Orion could put up 4,000,000 tons at a pop - so, with three launches of
this sized vehicle we could put up a 12 million ton Skyhook, and that
would be enough to lift 2,000 tons at a time - a fully constructed and
loaded midrange Orion! A 12 million ton Space Elevator would be
capable of lifting 160,000 tons from Earth every 61 minutes. Thus, a 4
million ton payload of a super Orion could be reloaded in about 1 day!
http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/hulls/carrier.html
Nuclear aircraft carriers are 90,000 tons each. So, this size space
elevator could lift nearly TWO of them at once! Not too shabby!
3) DEPLOY SPACE ELEVATORS ACROSS SOLAR SYSTEM - Reload the oribting
super Orions with the operating space elevators and deploy space
elevators around the solar system with the super Orions, returning to
Earth orbit after.
4) DEPLOY INTERPLANETARY INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS SOLAR SYSTEM - The
returning Super Orions get reloaded at Earth orbit without touching
down - and shuttle important cargos at high speed from planet to
planet. A ton of payload can support a person for one year in space.
So, with the ability to loft 4,000,000 tons per day - we could in
theory suport over 1.5 billion people in space without building up any
infrastructure in space. Of course we would build up such
infrastructure and live off the land at some point.
Low priority cargo follows the interplanetary superhighway - navigating
the lagrange points around the solar system from space elevator to
space elevator as describe previously.
5) EXPAND SHIPPING CAPACITY Additional Super Orions get assembled on
orbit and loaded with additional space elevators, to provide access to
all major bodies of the solar system - and add to the high speed cargo
ability of the human species.
6) SURVEY SOLAR SYSTEM RESOURCES AND THREATS- A fleet of 1,000
satellite class orions (300 tons each) are deployed to quickly survey
all the small bodies of the solar system - and pick out two categories
(1) - those that are a potential danger to Earth in the distant future,
(2) those that are highly valued for their raw materials
7) REDUCE THREATS CAPTURE RESOURCES - A fleet of 100 medium class Orons
are deployed to orbit to establish the mechanisms to move the dangerous
asteroids away from collision with Earth, and move rich asteroids into
orbits AROUND the Earth.
Here is a summary of the effects of a nuclear explosion and how nuclear
explosions can be used to deflect an asteroid;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_deflection_strategies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion
Using microfission triggers we can build small fusion bomblets that
would be ideal for powering Orion super ships with very little
pollution. This would be a great pastime for the nuclear weapons labs
standing idle around the Earth.
8) DEVELOP RESOURCES - Space factories can then be deployed on these
asteroids using the Space Elevator/Skyhook system of the local planet,
and raw material and finished goods can be returned from the space
factory/space mine - using the Space Elevator/Skyhook system.
9) EXPAND RESOURCE CAPACITY - Build up industrial capacity at key
points in the system - space colonies as well as space farms and space
factories - built from asteroidal resources - to add highly finished
products to the mix - i.e. consumer goods, foods, furnishings, woods,
leathers, clothing, etc. and building complex structures in space -
i.e. powersats, comsats, navsats, solar laser sats, etc.
NEXT STEPS AND KEY ISSUES AND MOTIVATIONS
Establishing a 12 million ton space elevator on orbit with the launch
of 3 super Orions - 8 million tons each - would be the only launch of
nuclear orions from Earth. This would release 1/300th of the
radioactive materials released from an old style above ground atom bomb
test of the 1950s. Humanity has conducted around 2,000 such tests to
date -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing
So, releasing 1/300th of 1 test to deploy something like a 12 million
ton space elevator - not to mention 3 super sized Orion spacecraft -
and rid the world of all its nuclear material (shuttled up the space
elevator to power the super Orions) - and keep all the world's
weaponeers busy! - seems like a good deal to me.
All later Orions would be brought up to orbit piecemeal, and launched
from orbit with zero pollution of Earth.
The cost? This can be yours all for about $3 trillion spent over 12
years. That's $250 billion per year - about 1/4 the size of the global
military budget - and about 16 times NASA's current budget
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
We could deploy the system described here - and have cities spread
across the solar system and the basis for a dramatic expansion of
business opportunities across the solar system - vastly enriching life
on Earth and wherever it travels from here.
Break even is expected to cost some $60 trillion additional cost - this
borne by risk takers over a 30 year period - $2 trillion is 5% of
today's global economy - which is the capital formation rate in a well
run capitalist economy. Its about 1/4 the size of the loss the stock
markets suffered in 1999 when the technology bubble burst... With tax
incentives, and low taxes generally - and a rising economic output - of
say 7% globally per year - this $60 trillion to break-even could occur
in as little as 15 years - thus, within 27 years of today we could have
a space based economy and capability of unbelievable proportions. If
we had the will to do it.
Why should we do all this today?
1) A SAFER WORLD - Provides a basis for rounding up all loose nukes
and collecting under a single international leadership council the
nuclear weapons production assets of the planet - converting the
materials to Orion Lite bomblets; - thus reducing the threat from loose
nukes and nuclear weapons in general;
2) A KINDER WORLD - Provides a means to INSPIRE cooperation - rather
than force cooperation (which won't happen) Cooperation is inspired by
strong win-win scenarios, both in business and politics, and military
advantage - as well as tapping into the positive vision and imagingings
nearly everyone has regarding new frontiers, new opportunities, and a
better future.
3) WIN WAR ON TERROR - Provides a unified vision of a future that is
better for everyone, and provides a strong counterpoint to the vision
of the future put out by anti-western muslim clerics. To end the war
on terror we must capture the hearts and minds of the children of the
muslim world and tie them to a vision of the future that is
simultaneously better than their life today and global in its outlook -
this program provides all these factors.
4) ENRICHES EVERYONE IN A FUNDAMENTAL WAY - Expands the material and
energy resources (assuming powersats are included in the mix) of
humanity while expanding the range of the human species. The entire
human race can not only sustain wealth that is some 100x greater than
today - $4,000 trillion in 2073 vs $40 trillion today - assuming a
steady 7% annual growth rate. Only the first 28 years of this 68 year
period of transition would require net investments of today's output.
5) ENDS SPIRALING POPULATION - When GDP/capita is below $10,000 per
person per year rising living standards increase rates of population
growth. When GDP/capita is above $10,000 per person per year rising
living standards DECREASE rates of population growth. This is why
places with high GDP, places like Japan, Europe, US, Canada, import
laborers from around the world. Clearly, with a population fo 7.5
billion and a global product of $40 trillion per year, the AVERAGE
INCOME PER CAPITA is $5,400 per year. So, overall our population is
rising at 2% per year. With growth at 7% per year we can see a net per
capita rise of about 5% per year - accelerating as we pass through
$10,000 per capita. - which would occur in 10 years under this scenario
- stopping at 9.2 billion people - then a gradual decline - assuming no
real breakthroughs in longevity research over this period. Per capita
income globally is likely to be at European levels by the time economic
break even is achieved - in 2023 - at that point average income will
continue to accelerate to achieve a global average of $550,000 per
person by 2073... of course there is likely to be disparities of
income across the globe. The poorest 1/10th is likely to be around
$55,000 per person per year - and the richest 1/10th is lkely to be
around $5,500,000 per person per year. Nearly 2/3 of the entire globe
- around 6 billion assuming best guess estimates of longevity research
efficiency is correct -will routinely travel throughout the solar
system.
William Mook
Brad Guth
still relatively complicated and perhaps a bit dyslexic, though
otherwise intended to share and share alike in spite of all the ongoing
flak against the likes of myself.
At least this recently accomplished page as having been shared by "Alex
Terrell" offers us some traditional full-scale and thus extremely
massive as well as spendy fly-by-rocket methods worth our considering
as an alternative to using small/micro satellites until the LSE-CM/ISS
is up and running.
Exploiting the Moon (Building on Project Constellation / September
2005)
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/Constellation/Routemap%20-%20lunar%20option7.htm#_Toc113893191
>William Mook; Here's more about Lagrange points...
Thanks ever so much for these old files that still badly informs us
village idiots, as to providing next to nothing as to the hour by hour
LL1/ME-L1 interactive location as I've previously requested. It's just
MOS wag-the-dog infomercial formulated info as having been re-posted in
order to look a bit different. You and I shouldn't have to run all of
these complex numbers. So, where's the LL1/ME-L1 beef?
http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html
http://www.freemars.org/l5/aboutl5.html
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322
All of these supposed new and improved notions of yours seems to
require that spendy and yet to be R&D CNT stuff. However, your notions
of doing everything the absolute hardest way possible and the most
spendy as well as energy consuming and thus environmentally damaging
way conceivable is rather impressive.
>A space elevator on the moon is an interesting topic. I can wax
>poetic about that.
Please do "wax" away. At least that form of waxing would be on "lunar
centric orbit?" topic.
Those "skyhooks" and other terrestrial notions of getting large masses
of substances delivered into space will likely happen within the next
century after we're dead. Of course, by then China will own the moon
and having 100% authority over the LSE-CM/ISS, and the scant remains of
terrestrial oil will bring $1000/barrel, whereas the only folks that
can afford to buy any of it will be those as already having it or
having some other energy to trade to the highest bidder. Yourself, Dick
Cheney and the likes of "tomcat" should get your thoughts and whatever
agendas together, which shouldn't be all that difficult since you
already think so much alike.
By then it'll only cost $10,000/month for your residential HVAC
demands, and a gallon of gasoline at $100/gal should get your 10 mpg
Hummer down the road just fine and dandy.
By then those nifty CNT terrestrial space elevator and skyhook tethers
should only have been costing us a billion dollars/km. Of course, since
more than half the world is Muslim and they haven't forgotten, chances
are that defending our terrestrial based and thus CNT tether assisted
space explorations and of accomplishing whatever subsequent lunar
extractions via those massive fly-by-rocket landers that still have to
be R&D, whereas we'll have to be continually defended with the likes of
nukes-in-space and having dozens of those GW class of ABLs being kept
in the air 24/7. Thus WW-III, WW-IV and WW-V should manage to keep your
global populations down to something under your 9.2e9 requirement.
Your "Project Orion" is certainly another real Greenpiece killer, but
since the environment of Earth will have already become terminated
beyond the point of no return, we'd have nothing to lose.
Is there some ulterior reasons why the safe and sane Ra-->Rn-->ion
thrust isn't any part of your mad scientist plan of action?
Is there some other reason why you've excluded upon the He3/fusion
alternatives?
Is there some other reason why you've excluded LSE tether dipole
extracted energy?
BTW; start making room for at least twice your "9.2 billion people",
thus 18e9 and still growing strong by the year 2100, that is unless the
incest cloned likes of yourself and Bush/Cheney can manage invent some
additional WMD lies in order in order to exterminate more than half of
them. Remember that at the rate we're going, oceans should soon become
worth 10 meters higher, thus we'll have a whole lot less dry land to
work with and more nasty bugs than anyone can imagine. However, a
nearly ice free Greenland and Antarctica should soon become valuable
properties (buy now while it's still ice covered and cheap).
BTW No.2; the richest will not become any 1/10th of the global
population, it'll become the upper most 0.1%(18e6) of humanity that'll
be considered as rich and powerful. The rest of us will be lucky to
afford toilet paper, much less having dry land to call home.
You certainly have a nifty way of spending other peoples hard earned
dollars, and of causing the absolute most collateral damage and carnage
upon the innocent in the process, just like GW Bush and all of his
incest partners in crimes against humanity, like good old Dick Cheney
and don't ever forget your Dr. Death(Kissinger).
Why can't we just accomplish the LSE-CM/ISS and essentially start
bringing home the He3 bacon?
Even from the initial station-keeping satellite platform that'll be
efficiently coasting along in a halo orbit within the LL1/ME-L1
interactive zone is offering an absolutely terrific spot for
accomplishing all sorts of Earth science and moon science. Even
astronomy improvements from that location isn't exactly a bad thing.
With regard to the radiation that's out there, especially as related to
the LL1/ME-L1 zone and of folks getting any closer to our moon;
The density of lead cuts hard-X-ray dosage by half for every 18 mm.
Ten of those layers = 180 mm = 1024:1 reduction.
Fifty of those layers = 900 mm = 32,768:1 reduction.
Our atmosphere (because of its low density and thus creating the least
amount of its own secondary/recoil impact is roughly equal to a bit
more than those 50 x 18 mm layers of lead. But then we have the vast
70,000 km Van Allen expanse or badlands that's worth at least another
100:1
On a fairly passive sort of solar day, it seems that our full moon as
having been detected from the cruising altitude of ISS is sharing a
good extra millirem/day. However, on a bad solar day and full moon,
make that extra dosage contributed from our naked moon worth 100
mr/day.
ISS isn't the least bit stationary nor is it keeping its position as
situated between Earth and the moon, but if it were there'd certainly
become any number of extra complex problems, including a bit of what
the moon shares in the form of secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays.
For argument sake, let us use ISS as our spacecraft that's headed for
becoming our station-keeping patform at LL1/ME-L1, and as a perfectly
good example of subsequently taking those fly-by-rocket EVA trips for
getting ourselves much closer to the surface of our moon.
386,400 -6378 -1738 -384 = 377,900 km that's between ISS as situated
384 km above Earth and remaining directly in alignment with the surface
our moon. We now have roughly 378,000 km to start our dividing in half
in order to fully appreciated the available radiation dosage.
Now we start doing the math from the basis of receiving a 100:1 dosage
increase plus half distance multiplier of 4:1 once getting yourself
through the Van Allen badlands that'll have happened once having
traveled the first half way towards the moon, being 189,000 km as what
gives us our first 400:1 increase in that original dosage from our
previously having been situated roughly 384 km above Earth as having
received that extra 0.001 rem/day.
If going in for the kill, it'll only amount to another 10+ fold of
cutting the distance in half in order to get yourself into actually
orbiting our moon to within 184.5 km of the lunar deck, and that's only
representing an extra 4^10 = 1.048e6:1 radiation multiplier.
Thus by having multiple times cut that distance to the moon in half,
and using the square of the distances as your hard-X-ray dosage
multiplier means that for each haft distance multiplies the lunar
contributed dosage by a factor of 4:1. Of course that's a wee bit testy
if the first half distance having established the radiation influx upon
your spacecraft at 0.4 rad/day, whereas obviously the only thing going
for those NASA/Apollo missions was their smoke and mirrors worth of
need-to-know soft-science and a good amount of their applied
conditional laws of physics.
Gees freaking Louise folks; now you tell me what the situations is all
about as per cruising along at 100 km off that absolutely nasty and
highly reactive lunar deck (especioally reactive if at best there's
only 2e5 atoms/cm3 getting in the way) as your craft is passing itself
directly over whatever that solar illuminated moon has to offer. Then
perhaps divide that hard-X-ray influx in half for being the average
since half the time is spent on the dark side of the moon (of course
it's not ever going to become half dosage because even the dark side of
the moon is still just as if not a bit more reactive, thus sharing a
bit of the secondary/recoil worth of whatever the cosmic influx has to
offer), but then also remembering to contribute a bit of whatever's
directly impacting your spacecraft and lo and behold, what did your
math as based upon the regular laws of physics have tell us?
It seems that even an earthshine environment of our moon is going to
remain as humanly testy if not potentially short-term lethal. If the
much lesser background and foreground radiation still doesn't manage to
get you, then whatever's passing by or God forbid impacting nearby your
nighttime moon surface at 3+km/s is still going to easily nail your
sorry moonsuit butt, especially nasty of whatever's 30+km/s stuff that
isn't slowing down all that much in that thin atmosphere, especially if
that arriving substance is offered as any typically good sort of
density/cm3, and there are certainly bound to being a few of those
head-on 100+km/s encounters that'll remain just as invisible as WMD
until it's too freaking late. Thus earthshine is only at best offering
a partial moonsuit butt saving alternative of being a whole lot less
TBI worthy.
Therefore, the surface of our moon (especially by day) is mostly suited
for robotics. Space travels outside of our Van Allen zone of death is
also of what's best suited for robotics. Fortunately, those sorts of
robotic satellites can actually be extremely small, energy efficient
and as a whole they'll take a rather nasty licking and keep on ticking
for not 0.1% the cost of accomplishing anything that involves humans.
Some of those small/micro satellites may even be configured for
surviving their impact/landing upon our moon, or for their getting into
a rigid airship mode of efficiently accomplishing Venus.
Artificially impacting our moon could easily have improved the lunar
atmosphere from being 1e6/cm3 to becoming something greater than
1e12/cm3. In fact the near surface populations of a Radon, Argon and of
sustaining a much greater CO2 matrix might easily exceed 1e15/cm3
(especially within some of the larger crater basins). It takes next to
nothing for targeting our moon with sufficient solids of CO2 packing a
hefty core of Radium and LRn. Physics-101 stipulates that the surface
impact/vaporising conversion rate of 1e6:1 into becoming a viable lunar
atmosphere has been entirely doable as of more than 4 decades ago.
Please take good notice how I'm not another anti-technology freak. I do
seem to be mindset stuck in the rut of believing that ETs and of their
intelligent design do happen coexist throughout our universe, and as
such I also believe that we're far from being the smartes of the lot.
I'm not even opposed to whatever yourself and the likes of the energy
sucking "tomcat spaceplane" has to offer. I'd even have shared on a
50/50 matching funds basis from my bank accounts that should have been
overflowing as of 5 years ago, with no limits and essentially no
strings other than your haveing to stay the course of such efforts
improving the quality of life for the lower 99.9% of humanity that's
sequestered upon this global warming Earth.
Therefore, I'll need to keep asking folks like yourself;
Good grief almighty. What the freaking sam hell is your sicko problems
that are continually orchestrating disinformation against accomplishing
our moon, or even against our better alternative of establishing the
LSE-CM/ISS?
BTW folks; why the heck do you suppose that your Third Reich
MI6/NSA~CIA and of your GOOGLE/NOVA/NASA mainstream status quo serviced
usenet that sucks and blows big-time is still (absolutely no lie folks)
hard at work delivering their spermware into my PC?
Brad Guth
~
Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
William Mook
ability to fashion and deploy large masses in space. This requires the
ability to life large payloads which in turn require big ass rockets.
Orion Lite is one solution. Mass drivers are another.
If you want a complete description of the celestial mechanics of
lagrange points and how they might be used to assist in interplanetary
travel, I would look toward the following academic texts, rather than
whine about the paucity of information contained in general online
descriptions:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691094802/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2468469-0440614#reader-link
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/9810244630/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2468469-0440614#reader-link
Of course, be prepared to spend $100 or so.
Large masses could be delivered to orbit in as little as five years if
we had the will to do it. Of course, we don't have the will to do it,
which marks us as a civilization in decline. Those people who want to
do big things in space - especially things that can make the world
better for everyone - are elements that seek to reverse our decline.
If we fail to do something for 100 years look for a massive die-off in
human numbers. With the leaks of loose nukes from the former Soviet
Union - and additional leaks of information leading to widespread
availability of nuclear weapons, don't expect such a die off to occur
meekly. The have-nots will likely succeed in taking down the haves to
a very large degreee, if they are asked to go to the wall due to our
inaction.
So, the choice before is rather clear.
We either act decisively now to tap the resources of the solar system
and fulfill the promise of technology to human culture by creating a
space faring species, or suffer a massive reversal which in the end
will create a post-technical species that avoids and/or is incapable of
technical innovation and growth.
There is no middle ground with a protected region of high-income and
freedom for the few.
China is as unlikely to own the moon as Soviet Russia or the United
States. China IS likely to send an expedition to the moon using
updated versions of the Proton/BrisM/Soyuz systems they've created
based on Russian designs. (Which is actually a design the Russians
stole from GE in the 1950s)
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm
Well before oil rises to $1000/barrel we will use coal to make
synthetic oil for $50/barrel. The threat of this source of oil poses
to traditional oil producers is one of the reasons they're talking down
the price of oil today - to help defuse the rush of capital into
alternative oil schemes.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/16/news/fortune500/oil_execs.reut/
You are right in suggesting that higher oil prices will have an adverse
effect on economic growth. But collapse won't come from that route.
It will come from demands of a growing population and covert means to
thwart those demands coming to be generally known - and the backlash
from *that* will make the terror war we're now fighting seem like
child's play. As I said, there is no middle ground between a global
culture that is vital and growing and one that is heading toward
ultimate destruction - much as leaders like to fantasize about that
middle ground.
The costs of $1 billion per km is vastly overstated. Such things won't
be cheap certainly, but they'll be affordable. Lets say the price tag
on a space elevator is $500 billion. That's a pretty hefty number -
but doable.
A $500 billion price tag on a space elevator capable of lifting
4,000,000 tons per day, and operating over a period of 20 years - with
the cost of capital 8% per annum - costs $50.93 billion per year and
lifts 1.46 billion tons per year. That's a cost of $34.86 per ton.
Since it takes about 1 ton to support a person each year in space, we
can figure how many people we can support off-world - even without
developing techniques to live off the land.
In a robust economy the capital formation rate of planet Earth would
average 5% of all economic activity. We can also assume a 7% per year
growth rate of our economy which is robust growth. And assuming we had
nuclear pulse rocket factories as well as space elevator factories
operating on Earth... we can calculate the following;
So, starting with $40 trillion per year of economic activity in 2005-
and say half this capital flows toward the construction of space based
infrastructure - then we can calculate the amounts of capital that will
be available to build space 'roads' and compute what percentage of our
population could be supported off-world.
======================================================
YEAR BILLIONS NUMBER TOTAL POP OFFWORLD
------------------------------------------------
2005 $1,000.00 2 2 6.47 45%
2006 $1,070.00 2 4 6.63 91%
2007 $1,144.90 2 6 6.80 100%
2008 $1,225.04 2 9 6.97 100%
2009 $1,310.80 3 12 7.14 100%
2010 $1,402.55 3 14 7.32 100%
2011 $1,500.73 3 17 7.51 100%
2012 $1,605.78 3 21 7.69 100%
2013 $1,718.19 3 24 7.89 100%
2014 $1,838.46 4 28 8.08 100%
2015 $1,967.15 4 32 8.29 100%
2016 $2,104.85 4 36 8.49 100%
2017 $2,252.19 5 40 8.71 100%
2018 $2,409.85 5 45 8.92 100%
2019 $2,578.53 5 50 9.15 100%
2020 $2,759.03 6 56 9.38 100%
=====================================================
As I said earlier, a more realistic estimate is that it will take 12
years to develop the needed technology and infrastructure on Earth -
and another 13 years or so to deploy it across the solar system - but
clearly had we the right technology, with the right cost structure, we
could make use of solar system resources relatively quickly by
investing only a small part (2.5% per year) of today's economic
activity in that technology. What the table above proves is that we're
not constrained by cost alone.
Even with today's economic activity, we could build sufficient
infrastructure to support everyone off world and extend roads to
include space elevators around all the major bodies of the solar
system.
As to your quibbles about safety of space elevators and nuclear pulse
rockets. Stringent controls would be needed for us to fly nuclear
pulse spacecraft as well as operate space elevators safely. But these
controls needn't be any more severe than that now employed to safely
operate supertankers or airliners.
As to your mistaken notions of ecological safety. Orion Lite which
I've proposed - using microfission triggers for fusion pulse units -
and especially the method of operation - with only three spacecraft
built and launched ONCE from Earth - would not cause any noticeable
rise in background radiation levels above that left by the 2,000
nuclear tests to date. The bulk of the nuclear pulse fleet would
depart from high orbit, with construction taking place in space - the
bulk of materials arriving by space elevator.
About your foolish ideas about space travel causing an unhinging of our
fragile environment - clearly if we do not rely on Earth based
resources for our primary industry, the environment of Earth will be
unaffected. In fact, by beaming power from space, and using space
based resources, and building factories in space, and building
commercial forests and commerical farms on space habitats - we remove
the burning and transport of fuels on Earth, we remove mining, material
processing, factories and commrecial forests and commercial farms from
Earth - leaving the Earth a vast residential park for those who remain.
The reason why I didn't discuss Radium to Radon ion rockets is that I
am unfamiliar with this technology, and can find no credible source
with which to educate myself.
If I am to understand you properly, you are suggesting we could take
the radioactive emissions from naturally occuring radium as it decays
radioactively to produce thrust with the emitted particles.
All isotopes of radium are radioactive. As they decay, they emit
radiation and form new radioactive elements, until they reach stable
lead. Isotopes of radium decay to form different isotopes of radon. For
example, radium-226 decays to radon-222, and radium-228 goes through
several decays to radium-224 before forming radon-220.
Radium emits several different kinds of radiation, in particular, alpha
particles and gamma rays. Alpha particles are generally only harmful if
emitted inside the body. However, both internal and external exposure
to gamma radiation is harmful. Gamma rays can penetrate the body, so
gamma emitters like radium can result in exposures even when the source
is a distance away.
If we take the radium isotopes that produce alpha particles we might
produce an ion rocket using this source. There are several issues with
this - the primary one being low thrust levels obtained. The other is
the inability to control the power level of the resulting rocket -
since we are using radioactive decay to produce power, not more
controllable fission or fusion reactions.
Helium 3 fusion wasn't explicitly excluded in my discussion. So, I
don't know why you implied it was excluded. I didn't mention He3
fusion specifically because its a long-shot technically, and there is a
limited availability of Helium 3 on the Earth.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/34/1/007
However, helium 3 may have been absorbed by lunar soil over aeons, and
this might one day be exploited.
So, all of this combined means that Helium 3 is unlikely to be of any
practical use in a time frame that makes a difference to humanity
today.
As to your comments about extracting energy from the angular momentum
of the Earth Moon system - it might be doable - as tidal power might be
- but this is likely to occur as part of a mix of energy technologies
which include tapping solar fusion, nuclear pulse fusion.
According to figures there are 6.47 billion people alive today. Growth
rates are around 2.5% per annum. This is likely to fall as standards
of living rise - assuming we can maintain economic growth well above
5%. This means population will peak around 9 billion or so.
If we remain economically stagnant, and rely solely on Earth based
resources of energy, food, fiber and minerals - we won't be able to
support 18 billion people and have a stable ecology. This means a die
off, and in an environment of widespread nuclear weapons technology,
this means the die off will affect the haves as well as the have nots -
and result in a post-technical species assuming humanity survives at
all.
So, as I've said, we have two choices, the flowering of technology
which supports universal growth by tapping offworld resources of energy
and materials, or death of technology as we expend the last remaining
resources on Earth.
Global warming is not likely to be a dramatic as you envision in the
time frame you envision.
The problems posed by large disparities of income are as nothing when
compared to the problems posed by large disparities of productive
capacities posed by super-intelligent machines, which are likely to be
built and commonly available before 2050 AD.
I've never proposed, as you allege, the spending of other people's
money or creating situations that cause damage and carnage as you
suggest. Your comments in this regard are foolish, as your other
comments are innacurate and belie a total lack of technical knowledge.
President Bush and his Administration is no better and no worse than
many Administrations that have come before him. I don't doubt he is
doing his best in very difficult times. It is truely rare for a
remarkable leader to emerge that has far reaching solutions at
precisely the right time. The type of problems we are discussing will
be six to ten presidencies removed from the present one. So, I don't
doubt we will be up to the challenge.
The lunar elevator you propose will not be built with today's launcher
technology. It will require something along the lines of a nuclear
pulse rocket deploying a lunar elevator. He3 does not constitute bacon
unless and until a number of difficult issues are favorably resovled.
Coal can be converted to synthetic oil at $50 per barrel, and will
likely be the next big innovation in energy. Low cost solar making low
cost hydrogen can reduce that cost to maybe $15 per barrel, and triple
the number of barrels each ton of coal produces. Ultimately, we'll
power our hydrocarbon economy by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere using
the Sabatier Process and making CH4 and H2O out of it using solar
derived hydrogen - from water via solar electrolysis. The CH4 will be
used directly as fuel, and will be processed chemically to form other
heavier hydrocarbons.
This will close the carbon loop and largely end the problems we have
with oil based economy.
As technology develops, we'll begin using hydrogen directly, and forget
about the carbon altogether.
This is the 'bacon' for the near term.
Longer term, with nuclear pulse vehicles, and space elevators, we'll
have a shot at creating solar power sats that beam energy directly to
where its needed with MASER and LASER beams.
High radiation levels imply large vehicle masses to allow human cargoes
to travel safely.
Your other comments border on the nonsensical, so I find it difficult
to respond usefully to them.
Cheers.
William Mook
Brad Guth
Spending hundreds of dollars on books that do NOT include tables of
hourly LL1/ME-L1 info that we've paid for at least a million times over
and over is a sick joke. Is that the very best joke that you can mange?
Is there a software program that'll deliver exactly that sort of
LL1/ME-L1 info?
An interactive gravity-well zone that's essentially on the move while
remaining centered upon Earth throughout each and every lunar cycle and
somewhat influenced by the 584 day Venus cycle that's also rather
interesting in that out of its 243 day(5832 hr) rotation that we we're
essentially looking at the same as a nearly tidal locked face of Venus
upon each of those cycles within 3 hours of that big sucker being 100%
tidal locked.
I'm sorry if I can't bring myself to review all of your notions at this
time, of which there actually are some extremely good points that
should have been accommodated as of decades ago. But the limited life
as I know it is simply too short if folks like yourself are going to
continually focus all of our limited and otherwise failing energy
resources and talents upon benefitting the upper most 0.1% of humanity.
Perhaps here is where you're slipping back into smoking pot again.
>Well before oil rises to $1000/barrel we will use coal to make
>synthetic oil for $50/barrel.
It takes energy, lots of it and mostly nasty energy to boot in order to
process quality coal into oil, and if crude becomes $1000/barrel is
when there'll be no way in hell that whatever oil derived from coal
will be allowed into the supposed free market at all that far behind
our American global energy domination cartel mark.
I've also been into wondering as to how many teratonnes worth of high
quality coal does our Earth have to spare, that's affordably at our
disposal?
It doesn't do us much good if whatever coal reserve is burried 20,000'
deep and/or having been on fire for the past several decades.
In the process of extracting, processing and utilizing such; besides
the 100:1 consumption of our atmosphere and at least 10 fold as much
fresh water as coal, how much radiation and other nasty elements get
released into the above-ground environment in the process?
I know that we have lots of extremely poor grades of coal, and
otherwise lots of nasty oily dirt, but is there actually enough O2
available and, whom gets to enjoy all of the downwind treats?
>Helium 3 fusion wasn't explicitly excluded in my discussion. So, I
>don't know why you implied it was excluded. I didn't mention He3
>fusion specifically because its a long-shot technically, and there is a
>limited availability of Helium 3 on the Earth.
The terrestrial energy it takes in order to extract and/or to
artificially produce He3 is more than the prtential of He3/fusion
energy return. Since you probably know that's the truth and nothing but
the truth; what does that make yourself?
Whatever notions of a spendy and otherwise next to impossible to defend
those terrestrial space elevators are good for someday in the next
century, however by then there'll be no fossil fuel that's worth going
after, most of our nuclear fuels will have been wasted upon WW-III,
especially after the horrific storms and rising oceans caused
specifically by our artificially dropping the albedo of Earth into the
nearest toilet, that plus the collateral carnage of WW-III will have
depopulated Earth down to perhaps 10% of what's walking about as of
today, and there still will not be a sufficient supply of the remaining
carbon based fuel to go around.
>So, the choice before is rather clear.
>We either act decisively now to tap the resources of the solar system
>and fulfill the promise of technology to human culture by creating a
>space faring species, or suffer a massive reversal which in the end
>will create a post-technical species that avoids and/or is incapable of
>technical innovation and growth.
This I've totally agreed with for way more than the last decade,
although I'm for sticking much closer to my home world and of utilizing
its moon than what you're thinking about doing, which is not even
considering upon whatever our moon or Venus has enstore for humanity.
>As technology develops, we'll begin using hydrogen directly, and forget
>about the carbon altogether.
Here again, I agree that LH2 and H2O2 are nearly the holy grail of
clean and renewable energy, at least as a go-between method of our
safely storing all sorts of green/renewable energy for whatever
on-demand task of the present and future.
BTW; - how would you like being the wizard encharge of the Venus
atmosphere conversion process?
It's a pretty big and nasty job that someone with a positive brain cell
left functioning outside of the big mainstream status quo box needs to
accomplish on behalf of folks making a go of it on Venus. I'm not
thinking about having to terraform the whole damn globe of Venus, just
for greatly improving the local habitats and of operating those massive
rigid airships that could easily haul thousands, tens of thousands if
not 100,000 folks at a time.
Didn't I already mention that there's absolutely no shortage of easily
obtainable green/renewable energy upon Venus?
Thanks to that terrific atmospheric soup of the long seasons of day and
night being so gosh darn thick, there's also NO significant TBI dosage
faults with life (ETs if need be) having to survive upon Venus.
There's also no shoratge of viable raw elements to process into
whatever, including CO2-->CO/O2 or if extracting from those relatively
cool clouds there's even a few megatonnes worth of H2O to being had.
>China is as unlikely to own the moon as Soviet Russia or the United
>States.
I do not agree. Want to know why?
Your anti-mindset as to Ra-->Rn-->ion-->lead is noted. I do not agree.
Want to know why?
>President Bush and his Administration is no better and no worse than
>many Administrations that have come before him.
I believe that you're incorrect, in that Hitler wasn't nearly as
dishonest, although lacking about the same level of remorse seems to
run in the family. OOPS!, did that sound like I have a passionate
hatred towards our LLPOF resident warlord(GW Bush)? Sorry about that.
Clue; do yourself and others a big ass favor; don't brown-nose yourself
by sticking up for that sorry bastard, or of anyone associated within
that sicko administration from hell.
>The lunar elevator you propose will not be built with today's launcher
>technology.
You jest, or perhaps you're simply a wee bit dumbfounded to boot. Want
to know why?
BTW; your future cost of living hasn't included those $100/happy-meal
and of the $100/gallon of gas or fuel oil, nor for the multi-trillion
burden per year of demands takan for sustaining our global perpetrated
cold-wars and global energy domination ruse, not to mention a dozen
other bloody ruse factors that have been sinking our good ship LOLLIPOP
as of today.
I'll get myself back into your rant from time to time, as I'll honestly
try to positively share as well as learn whatever I can. Thanks again
for all the good information you've shared.
Brad Guth
William Mook
of software you seek. That you wouldn't invest the time and money to
actually get what you want speaks volumes about you as a person and
about your commitment to your stated goals. I guess you're another
lying bastard by this measure.
As to your rant there is so much there that is nonsensical, its
nonsense again to try to reply to it all point by point. Just hitting
the highlights.
China gains absolutely no advantage owning the moon - providing they
get there using Soyuz/Proton derived technology. They would gain huge
advantage if they build nuclear pulse rockets and deployed space
elevators around the inner planets, including the moon - but that's a
far more fantastical program than the one they're pursuing. I can't
see any government bureaucrat being that visionary AND that successful
politically. So, lacking the means to make practical use of off world
resources there is absolutely no political advantage to claiming
possession of celestial bodies - a lot of advantages is demonstrating
technical competence sufficient to land a person on the moon and return
them to Earth. Especially if they're selling highly technical products
to the world's markets.
Radium to Radon to Lead is an example of RADIOACTIVE DECAY. This is
UNCONTROLLABLE - as it is neither fission nor fusion. There is no
intermediary that controls the process. It just happens at a certain
rate depending on how much material you start out with and the half
life of the material which is unchanging. The momentum of the
resulting particles, if those particles are deflected by an external
magnetic or electrical field or perhaps even some physical nozzle - is
LOW relative to the weight of material involved. Power level has to do
with the HALF-LIFE of the material and that's fixed. You'd be far
better off taking the ions produced by nuclear fission and redirecting
those - here you can achieve unlimited power levels, and more
importantly turn the damn thing off. But even here the nature of your
nozzle reduces your thrust to weight well below 1 - which means you
ain't going to use it to launch off Earth - excepting of course nuclear
pulse propulsion - which is pretty much what I've described earlier.
I didn't vote for George Bush and I don't support many of his views and
policies. I even question is entry into office. But I accept him as
my President, and as such I respect him, his positions, and the job he
has been called upon to do on behalf of all Americans - including you.
So, despite by background, I'd punch you out if I heard you rant
against him at a bar the way you are here.
A space elevator has a certain mass flow rate per elevator mass. Earth
based space elevators have a 75:1 weight to lift - and can lift three
payloads per hour. So, they lift their own weight per day. Earth
Skyhooks have a 6,000:1 weight to lift - and it takes about a day for a
payload to be lifted enough so another can be attached. So, they can
lift their weight in about 20 years. Lunar skyhooks are about 4,000:1
afaik - and they can lift their weight in 3 years... Now we look at
how much mass we can place using conventional rockets. We can put a
lunar skyhook up and lift about 5 kg per day - max. We won't do it
this way. We'll use very big rockets to put space elevators into Earth
orbit, and then, lift more space elevator parts - and the loft other
space elevators around other planets and the moon - building up
capacity over time - STARTING WITH BIG ASS ROCKETS - the biggest I know
of is the very big Orion class rockets. I propose ORION LITE - where
the pulse units are fusion based, triggered by micro-fission devices.
There are 245 billion tons of easily recoverable coal in the US, and
about 1.3 trillion tons of easily recoverable coal in the world. Using
Fischer-Tropsch we can make 500 billion or 2.6 trillion barrels of oil
from these resources respectively - using Bergius and renewable sources
of hydrogen we can make 1.5 trillion and 7.8 trillion barrels of oil
from these sources respectively. I favor the latter approach near
term, trending toward all renewable hydrogen as we go through the coal
reserves. After hydrogen, we'll use beamed energy from space derived
from sunlight, or nuclear fission and nuclear fusion directly.
Although fusion and fission as well as solar, must all be reduced
dramatically in price to be useful.