Re: terraforming

From: Brad Guth (ieisbradguth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 02/21/05 

Date: 21 Feb 2005 14:46:41 -0800

Alfred Montestruc,
I hope this follow-up reply isn't sharing too much information.

Besides the solar illuminated environment that's tremendously hot and
nasty (as it should be whenever there's such an unobstructed 1.4 kw/m2
having nearly 89% of the visible spectrum absorbed), there's also the
secondary issues of hard-X-rays and of Gamma rays to contend with.
Atmosphere is what significantly cuts that impact down to a dull roar
(Earth having roughly 10 tonnes/m2 plus the Van Allen zone of death on
our side). However, residing upon the lunar nighttime side is certainly
damn cold but, at least it isn't exactly ever totally dark because of
the absolute vibrance of starlight is typically twice as bright as is
here upon Earth, and of whatever becomes earthshine is actually too
bright to even safely look directly at. However, as to the broader
spectrum sensitive Kodak eye or that of an unfiltered CCD, the
illumination of the Sirius star system and of many similar near-UV and
UV/a stars are 512~1024 times as intensified from whatever's observed
here upon Earth, whereas the IR spectrum remains somewhat of a constant
(slightly more intensified) but, upon the moon we must also include
whatever's being reflected as secondary IR that's nicely derived off
the raw solar illuminated lunar surface that's also representing an
absolutely terrific cosmic morgue of what a surface collected debris
field of meteorites and impact related shards that's entirely uneroded
and thus sharp as a tack, plus otherwise comprised of mostly dark lunar
basalt (not the sorts of 55+% reflective nature of those phony baloney
NASA/Apollo surface EVA obtained images, but as depicted by their
truthful sorts of images as NASA/Apollo obtained from orbit).

The following link to the ROSAT images were of various levels of moon
hard-X-rays having been greatly moderated by way of what our Van Allen
expanse (roughly 70,000 km worth) which tends to filter/moderate a fair
amount of such, and even so the ROSAT measurements clearly impress upon
the notion that the solar impacted moon is indeed chuck full of being
hard-X-ray nasty, and that's not by any small degree.

http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
"You may have noticed that there were a few dots of X-rays in the
Moon's dark half. Here, the moon is not reflecting the Sun's X-rays,
since it is not in the direct light of the Sun. Instead, charged
particles (like protons and electrons) in the Sun's solar wind can
reach the far side of the Moon, and they produce X-rays in much the
same way that cosmic rays produce gamma-rays on the Moon. Read the next
section of the gamma-ray Moon to learn about that."

"The Moon is brighter in gamma rays than the quiet Sun! In fact, the
most sensitive gamma-ray detector flown to date, EGRET aboard the CGRO
satellite, was not able to detect the quiet Sun. (The Sun goes into
periods of extreme activity, during which it is called an active Sun;
the Sun is said to be quiet when it is not experiencing such
activity.)"

I'm not your all-knowing radiation expert here but, I believe Gamma
rays can be even nastier to our DNA than X-rays.

Here's a few other interesting spectrums of the moon, most of which are
indicating as expectedly somewhat serious reactions due to the fact
that our moon has not a worthy atmosphere as to attenuate and/or
spectrum filter squat.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/multiwavelength_astronomy/multiwavelength_museum/moon.html
http://www.airynothing.com/high_energy_tutorial/sources/moon.html
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/moon/
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=12386

This next document is simply another example that's way over my
dyslexic limited three-brain-cell head. In other words, it says quite a
lot without actually saying much of anything that you or I comprehend
(as intended), but it also manages to infer upon the aspects of primary
and secondary radiation as being somewhat unexpectedly nasty as
compared to the original NASA/Apollo data. Notice how this document and
of just about every other document that has the all-knowing NASA stamp
of approval, having been based upon hard scientific data of specific
numbers has consistantly avoided being all that specific as to the
hard-science of what such X-rays and Gamma rays actually amount to in
terms of the surface intensity/m2 or whatever. So, here comes the
unavoidably subjective interpretations from such data and images, that
which is what's driving my speculations as to the minimum of 100:1 and
as much as 1000:1 intensity differential existing between being raw
solar impacted as opposed to being situated within the sub-frozen
protective shade of lunar nighttime, and even of that much is excluding
upon the nastier solar flare and other horrific out-burst of solar
energies as continually recorded by the SOHO satellite, of which the
lack of any significant lunar atmosphere allows such solar flak to
impact with almost no measurable reduction in intensity and/or
velocity.
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~maxim/papers/darkmoon_wargelin/darkmoon_wargelin.pdf

As to watering the moon; You can certainly transport fully contained
units of water and/or ice to the moon (though I don't have any clue as
to how we could safely get any of that physically onto the surface
without involving an impact phase of essentially vaporising everything
to a fairlywell). Until there's a substantially increased layer of an
atmosphere (at the very least 0.01 bar), the likes of free water or
even ice openly surviving is not going to stay put for long.

Physically impacting the moon so as to vaporising roughly 1e6:1 of the
basalt into releasing it 50% mass of O2 is certainly one viable method
of initiating the terraforming process of accomplishing the
terraforming of our moon. Besides such an atmosphere accommodating the
containment of water and/or ice, the need for greatly reducing the raw
solar and cosmic influx is absolutely imperative, however 0.01 bar or
roughly 100 kg/m2 simply isn't going to suffice for essentially naked
moonsuit EVAs, whereas a full tonne/m2 or 0.1 bar is going to start to
work on our behalf (still barely survivable without a moonsuit). If the
mixture of 50% O2 is augmented with much heavier elements than merely
N2 (actually N2 isn't much good for anything), then perhaps there's a
chance of short-term surviving without a moonsuit.

Going underground, such as into hollow rilles and/or into a substantial
geode pocket, as preferably having 100+ meters of solid basalt between
yourself and that of whatever's freely impacting the lunar surface is
what's going to cut the mustard, thereby saving your sorry *** in more
ways than you think. Of course, the interior of my CM/ISS is offering
far more than 10 tonnes/m2 of shielding (I believe that I was thinking
about accommodating 50 t/m2 as surrounding the 1e6 m3 ISS abode) and,
thank God that it's residing 64,000 km off the moon and thus nowhere
near being closely surrounded by millions of m2 of clumping moon-dirt
and even nastier dark scorching-hot basalt that's radiating at
everything from toasty IR to DNA lethal Gamma rays in every which way
but lose.

Of course, robotics can be configured for surviving such an
environment, and of having the likes of such interactive instruments
and of those nifty SAR image receiving apertures deployed upon the
surface of the moon is certainly offering one hell of an opportunity as
towards planetary and even deep space radar imaging on steroids (for
example 0.1 m/pixel of Titan at not 10% the cost of what we've seen via
probe, or 10 mm/pixel of Venus and Mars shouldn't be all that
unobtainable, and obviously impending NEOs could all become nailed down
once and for all).

Even the notion of deploying a fully interactive and if need be
adaptive optical secondary mirror for that of boosting conventional
optical/visual magnification is somewhat impressive, although I don't
honestly believe the open nature of any such raw optical lens or mirror
is going to survive for long within the fairly nasty gauntlet of
whatever the moon is continually gathering, as well as running itself
into at 30+ km/s. Once again, a robust atmosphere is what's needed, and
even if that's CO2/Rn is good enough for shielding such robotics, and
even as per somewhat moderating the thermal extremes (a key factor in
holding onto the likes of O2).

Of course I always appreciate some of the usual mainstream status quo
feedback, such as the offering of 'Horse manure' contributed by lord
whomever 'amontestru...@yahoo.com' is, that comes along with the same
usual crapolla of absolutely no hard-science, at least I uncovered
nothing of any such science study/report or otherwise even a link as to
anything related to the supposed hard-science of water/ice in space.
Exactly whom's kidding whom?.

I do believe the near absolute vacuum of space somewhat alters the
supposed 'triple point' factor of boiling and/or vaporising said water
(since there's actually no such wet/steam phase to water in space; it's
either a solid block of 'ice' or it's an extremely low density 'vapor'
of molecules with absolutely nothing surviving in between), as would
even be the case at the near vacuum of 0.01 bar as per existing upon
Mars, whereas upon Mars said water has to remain as sub-frozen and/or
physically covered by something fairly substantial, especially as the
Mars tropical day wears on, said water from ice would boil off into
becoming clouds of vapor and, Mars has damn few clouds that aren't
mostly of CO2 and dry-ice.

I take notice as to how no specifics as to the tonnage of those sodium
atoms being been excavated away from the moon, just the subjective
notion that it hardly amounted to anything. Well, I'm one of those
village idiots that would honestly I'd like to know the tonnage. Don't
suppose there's going to be any reply to that.

BTW; thanks for the link:
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/pics/941.jpg
of which this graphic also seems to specify that of transporting and/or
of existing within extremely low pressure, as such it seems there's no
freaking way of sustaining water in the raw without such returning to
vapor. Since there's no way of physically deploying even the likes of
your 'Horse manure' to the surface of the moon (without it impacting
and thereby vaporising), I'll have to ask as to what have you planned
and/or imagined as for the contained delivery of said water to the
lunar surface?

I totally agree that the extremely sub-frozen lunar nighttime is about
the only survivable environment for the likes of water as ice, as well
as survivable for whomever is within a suitable EVA moonsuit could
possibly survive for days before requiring the transplant of banked
bone marrow, plus a good amount of ductape for patching all of those
through-holes created by dust-bunnies and bits of sand arriving at
30+km/s, as otherwise God forbid a small pebble and your sorry *** is
all but history.

BTW No.2; it's easier said than accomplished as to shade whatever from
the sun unless you're situated within the lunar nighttime and/or via
earthshine, as per the surrounding lunar landscape that's absolutely
scorching hot by the raw solar spectrum day is also sharing off a great
deal of IR spectrum energy that's emitting such energy in every which
way imaginable, thus you'll need a great deal of physical shade that's
also shading the surrounding lunar terrain for nearly as far as the eye
can see. Of course, going underground is you're best alternative for a
whole lot more life saving reasons than being shaded.

I'm entirely for the honorable process and obtainable goal of
terraforming our moon, although perhaps initially on behalf of
robotics, then establishing the LSE-CM/ISS from which the final phase
of efficiently pulverising our moon with loads of it's own basalt. As
you've mentioned, and I'll reaffirm that it'll take a great deal of
atmospheric tonnage from vaporised basalt before man actually gets the
opportunity as to walk anywhere upon the moon, or even within the moon.
Although, for now above the moon is doable.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm