Re: LSAM
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Apr 2006 02:15:08 -0700
You act as if anyone that questions your methods is so sort of demon. IfEric Chomko,
you REALLY had something then you'd actually welcome the feedback just so
you could shoot it down. Playing devil's advocate in science and
engineering is part of it. Am I supposed to merrily agree with every damn
thing you state?! Is that what you expect?
I no longer consider the sorts of loaded and/or naysay biased questions
as being for real.
I do however welcome constructive/CONSTRUCTIVE feedback. Do naysayers
even know what the word "constructive" means?
BTW; There's dozens of NASA and independent certified links as to
extracting lunar He3. If need be, I'll be glad to share those once
again, for the hundredth time. Is there some technical reasons why
your PC can't perform such basic research, as in searches pertaining to
a given item or topic?
I've never once suggested that I'm 100% right about each and every one
of my observations or subsequent applications of math, or upon that of
my methods of having taken in the whole picture, and of my subsequently
having given such consideration by way of my best interpretive effort.
I have given in jest a few weird ideas or alternatives that could
become interesting if not at least partially true.
You make me wonder about your whole idiot-savant persona, as lacking aThere's lot of parts I'm lacking. Where would you like to start?
second part...
I'm certainly not all-knowing like yourself, and I'm certainly not
getting rich at this.
Insults, but no technology or physics for the technology.Since you've previously shown absolutely no consideration as to
constructively contributing to the topic or sub-topic at hand,
therefore, why don't you tell me whatever it is that you and your
naysay mindset thinks can't possibly work, then I'll share as to what I
think can work on behalf of establishing the lunar space elevator. At
least that way I won't waste any of your valuable time with my trying
to suggest upon whatever it is that your negative mindset is glued to.
Nope, your brand of ignorance is what starts wars.So, having been nothing but constructively good and nice to humanity
(intent upon benefiting the lower 99.9% of humanity) and of otherwise
having contributed multiple ways of salvaging our environment and of
resolving our energy fiasco is what starts wars? That's certainly
being very pro-Hitler and/or GW Bush sweet and/or brown-nose minion
like of yourself.
When in doubt, Brad goes politically berserk....I do seem to have that problem whenever certain pagan heathens and the
likes of our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) intentionally cause so
much collateral damage and carnage of the innocent. Perhaps there's a
12-step program where I can become a certified Third Reich member in
good standing within your Skull and Bones cult.
Can't seem to find sodium chloride in this section:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Composition
Too bad you're so deep into naysay/denial. I guess the 14,000 km
surrounding atmosphere of sodium is just another WMD illusion, much
like the 900,000 km trail of sodium, either of which can be replicated
by most any halfwit astronomer. Therefore, you're talking about
discrediting tens of thousands. Must be that hundreds of such big-time
astronomers have been on drugs for the past few decades, and of their
instruments having been all phony.
No doubt funding.In order to R&D their first AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander, I think
you're correct. Another few billion hard earned dollars from now and
we should have our first proof-tested fly-by-rocket lander.
Just reading the page gives me a headache:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm
Sorry about that extremely old page. The following page is also
somewhat outdated and will soon get refreshed with hopefully fewer
words and more facts.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Would you be at all interested in helping with polishing the context of
either, or that of creating an entirely new page?
I've read the page. You expect to drop a tether from a distance 58,000 kmThat's basically the idea, as having to work this initially from the
from the moon to the moon and anchor it?
top down, although dozens of methods come to mind that should be
discussed in specific detail. Once something of robotic fiber
manufacturing is established upon the surface of the moon, as then it's
a process of building this tether capacity from the bottom up.
1738 km? I thought you started from 58,000 km? Please explain what theSorry, I'm obviously confusing you with silly facts.
1738 km is vs. the 58,000 km, distance?
1738 km is the distance from the center of the moon to it's surface. I
believe that's called radius or r1. As opposed to dealing with the 6
fold greater gravity of mother Earth and of Earth's r1 = 6378 km,
whereas upon the moon the tether loading is obviously starting off at
1/6th G, and it's obviously becoming further improved by another 4:1
once having gone a mere 1738 km above the deck, as opposed to the ESE
and spendy CNT fiasco taking 6378 km plus having 6 fold greater initial
gravity factor to start with. therefore, the LSE tether application is
so much better off than just the 6:1 advantage.
1/6th G means that the basalt composite tether itself weighs 1/6th to
start off with (say 2.8 g/cm3 /6 = .4667 g/cm3, whereas 1/6th the
weight at 1/6th the gravity is what I perceive gives this tether
application a potential 36:1 advantage, and/or receiving the little
extra benefit of 6378/1738 = 3.67:1 squared. In other words, as the
LSE tether trails away from the surface of the moon (as headed for
LL-1), it's starting off with having at least the 6:1 advantage and
it's getting so much lighter so much quicker than comparative to what
the ESE tether has to deal with, and there's obviously damn little if
any factors of weather to contend with, supposedly few if any
commercial aircraft, lighting should not be a factor, there's currently
no lunar Taliban that'll be trying to take it out, and hopefully no
Greenpeace or ELF protestors to get rid of.
As compared to the ESE tether mass self-loading.
I'm thinking at best we might see as great as a 36:1 * 3.67:1 = 132:1
advantage.
At the very worse it could be offering 6 * 13.47 = 81:1 advantage
Considering the 4.8+ GPa worth of basalt fiber to start with, as such I
don't see the problem, especially since the taper and/or stepped
configuration of the LSE tether has virtually no physical limitations
or of even shape considerations. It could be a very large tapered
straw like configuration, whereas the lunar base diameter of this
composite straw might be a km in diameter, whereas the upper most
destination attachment at the fairly massive 1.28 km CM/ISS that's
58,000+ km above is perhaps down to as little as 10 meters in diameter,
thus a 100:1 taper ratio.
I'm thinking that at most a 10:1 ratio would be more than sufficient,
as well as having a 100 meter attachment diameter at the CM/ISS would
certainly look a whole lot more robust. Another alternative is to make
this tether straw wall thickness as being of what's tapered, thus the
top to bottom inside diameter of this composite straw would remain as a
relative constant and only a 10:1 wall thickness ratio would make the
bottom attachment worth perhaps 100 mm thick, and of the very top of
this element being as little as 10 mm thick.
This tether/straw configuration would otherwise suggest a great deal of
redundancy and over-kill capacity, as well as for being easily
repaired. It the tether was ever terminated by an unavoidable asteroid
or sizable meteor that got past the 100 GW laser cannons, as such the
onboard reaction thrusters would manage the CM/ISS station-keeping
until the tether is reestablished. it's obviously a wee bit more
complicated than that, but you should by now have some fundamental
notions as to what I trying to convey.
-
Brad Guth
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Mars colonization versus Stanford Torus
- Next by Date: Re: Branson and Bigelow to team up for a space hotel?
- Previous by thread: Re: LSAM
- Next by thread: Re: LSAM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
