Re: Mining the Moons of Mars

On Jan 12, 7:02 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 11, 12:53 pm, willie.moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Jan 8, 8:31 am, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And yet our physically dark as coal Selene/moon is forever taboo/
nondisclosure rated, with more excluded evidence than our mutually
perpetrated cold-war, JFK and TWA flight 800 combined.

We can't even establish a platform of science instruments within
Selene L1. Is that pathetic, or what?

~ BG

Brad,

Every single word you have uttered is absolutely and abjectly wrong at
every level of meaning!!

Please consider the following facts;

THE MOON'S SURFACE IS NO DARKER THAN THE EARTH'S SURFACE

That at 8% average albedo, the moon's surface is no darker than wet
soil, bodies of water, oceans, or forests of Earth - which are also
8%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg

If you've ever been in a boat on a lake on a sunny day, or sitting in
a grassy field, on a sunny day, or on a beach on a sunny day - you'd
notice that despite only 8% of the sunlight reflecting back at you -
its pretty bright!! You'd also notice this if you'd actually get out
of the basement and look up at the moon on a dark cloudless night -
you'd see the moon shine like a beacon - despite its 8% albedo.

The only reason the Earth's albedo is higher than 8% is the presence
of a smoggy cloudy dusty atmosphere and ice fields near the poles.

If you've ever ridden in a car, or ridden a car around town on a sunny
day you'd realize too that the moon is brighter than asphalt (4%
instead of the moon's 8%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

and if you've ever driven a car around town in the summer, you'd know
its damned bright!! Bright enough to wear shades.

THERE IS NOTHING TABOO ABOUT OUR TRIP TO THE MOON

Significant data exists discussing the history of these historically
important voyages.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/

you can even obtain samples of lunar material to experiment with.

http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm

Point is, the moon's surface is no darker than Earth's surface - its
the atmosphere and snow that make it a brighter astronomical object.

THE COLD WAR IS NOT A SECRET

The Library of Congress has detailed historical documents available to
anyone who requests information;

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0010/coldwar.html

any of the minor details that remain secret to this day may be
requested via a FOIA request;

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/how_to.htm

THE ASSASINATION OF JFK HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH ANY OF THE
OTHER SUBJECTS YOU MENTIONED - AND IT APPEARS THAT THE MYSTERY OF THE
ASSASINATION HAS FINALLY COME TO LIGHT!

http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/

It has nothing at all to do with the moon.

TWA FLIGHT 800 EXPLOSION WAS DUE TO A FAULTY FUEL TANK AND HAS NO
CONNECTION WITH ANY OTHER THING MENTIONED IN YOUR RANT

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAR0003.pdf

As of 2006 there were 18 fuel safety directives issued for B737s and 9
fuel safety directives issued for A320s.

There have been four fuel tank fires involving Boeing aircraft - one
including the TWA flight - so its not unique;

In 1990 when a Boeing 737-300 operated by Philippine Airlines exploded
on the ground while taxiing

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900511-1〈=en

In 1996, was the tragic incident when a Boeing 747-131 operated by
Trans World Airlines exploded in midair some 12 mins after take off
from JFK

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/twa800/

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960717-0〈=en

In 2001, when a Boeing 737-400 of Thai Airways exploded, half an hour
before scheduled take off.

In 2006, when the left wing fuel tank of a Boeing 727 of Transmile Air
Service exploded in Bangalore while being towed on ground.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2006/060712a.htm

The Nation Transportation Safety Board says that available evidence
from these incidents suggests that the cause is the ignition of fuel-
air mixture in the center wing fuel tank.

The Caltech Explosion Dynamics Laboratory performed a series of
experiments which highlighted the flammability of fuel/air mixtures of
jet fuel

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/background.html

If you would actually trouble yourself to learn a few facts about
these matters you'd actually begin to heal whatever seems to cause
your serious disconnect with reality.

Good luck Sponge Bob!

On average (meaning AVERAGE), full moonshine is worth 7.1% (that's
upon 'average' somewhat darker than coal), terribly sorry about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Albedo-e_hg.svg
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/the-moon/moon-albedo/

The albedo of the moon - when fully illuminated by the sun - is 12%
sponge Bob! haha - the 7.1% is an average based on partial
illumination over the course of a month.

Details count - and as per usual - YOU ARE UNAWARE OF THEM!

Coal reflects anywhere from 4% to 9% of incident light - depending on
weathering and carbon content. On average coal is 1/2 to 1/3 as
bright as the moon under full illumination. On average the surface of
the moon is as bright as bodies of water, soil, forests and meadows of
Earth! Earth's AVERAGE albedo is higher than the moon's for one
reason and one reason only- the Earth's atmosphere and the
hydrological cycle. Ice fields and water clouds are nearly perfectly
reflective - which increases average albedo. Yet we humans rarely
operate above clouds and on ice floes. Walking on the moon in the day
is pretty much the same as walking in a meadow on a sunny day - except
the moon is sunnier than any place on Earth by about 50%!! So, your
characterization of the moon as a dark place is ridiculous - and your
'analysis' of the lunar photos on that basis is madness.


btw, the average albedo of Earth has white clouds, snow and ice, plus
a UV reactive atmosphere, whereas our Selene/moon does not. Go
figure.

That's right! I pointed that out - but you totally miss the ponit.
People don't generally live above the clouds or on ice floes or
unbroken snowfields. People live in houses surrounded by yards and
asphalt or dirt streets or float in houseboats on bodies of water -
which all have the same or less reflectivity under full illumination
than the surface of the moon.

btw once again, why not instead go after mining our second captured
moon Cruithne 3753, at not 1% the cost of doing a Mars moon?

Where do you get your figures? Going to Cruithne is about the same
level of effort as going to Mars. Which is more like 100% of going to
mars - not 1% of going to mars

Also, why do you talk as if someone's ignoring Cruithne? Obviously
we're not. If anything, YOU are unaware again of the level of effort
- and the details that would allow you to make an accurate assessment.

Clearly Cruithne has an orbital period around the SUN of 1 year - it
doesn't orbit Earth - in fact its bean shaped orbit from Earth's
viewpoint - is off to the side, not centered on Earth at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

And it never gets closer than 12 million km and it won't do that until
2292AD -

The question any off-world mining company must ask is- what's the
total DELTA VEE needed to get the materials from this asteroid (or any
other celestial body) to Earth orbit? and what is the cost of
establishing the technology to do so? that will give you a mass flow
rate for a given power level, and the cost per unit mass to get stuff
back to Earth. Orbital periods will give you times. Mars takes about
a year. The moon half a week. Cruithne - 6 months to 18 months. The
asteroid belt - 3 years.

Generally speaking if you're within 15,000 km of Earth's surface -
you're within 1/10th second teleoperation response time - which means
real-time control of robots is feasible - which means you don't have
to have a large population of people in place on your asteroid.
Cruithne never gets less than 12.5 million km away - which is about
1,000x too far for real time operation.

I have proposed for 20 years now that small richly endowned bodies of
the solar system be captured and brought into sun synch polar orbits
above Earth, and then solar powered tele-operated factories be
deployed on them to produce things that are then de-orbited directly
to users on Earth using GPS guidance and solar powered rail guns - and
then MEMs based braking and landing rockets for final touch-down.

Hyperbolic excess delta vee for a minimum energy transfer range from 3
km/sec to 8 km/sec - for Cruithne - which is far larger than the moon
and mars. Transfer times range from 6 months to 18 months - which
again is far larger than the moon, and larger at times than some mars
transfers - which can occur in as little as 90 days.

http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2003/raine/c3.html

So, while the surface gravity of the moon and Mars add to delta vee -
its clear we cannot do better on Cruithne - though certainly we can do
Cruithne with the same tech we can do Mars.

A solar powered rail gun on Cruithne can send materials to Earth orbit
- to be processed by orbiting factories - and finished goods can
supply people on Earth - as well as industry on orbit. The same may
be said of any asteroid in the asteroid belt - any Earth crossing
asteroid - and the surfaces of the moon and mars.

One thing we can do with ANY asteroid - is move it to Earth orbit for
efficient processing with remotely controlled solar powered factories.

At 130 billion tonnes - Cruithne may be moved to orbit around Earth by
imparting 3 km/sec to it at minimum energy transfer.

Using shaped atomic charges - portions of the asteroid may be ejected
at 20 km/sec. To impart 3 km/sec to the asteroid using this approach
- to bring it into a safe orbit around Earth - requires;

u = 1- 1/exp(3/20) = 13.93%

that 18.1 billion tonnes of the asteroid be energized by atomic
explosions. With 30% of the atomic blasts showing up in the ejecta -
and 70% showing up in blast effects - we need 3.62e+21 joules of
energy. A kg of Uranium has 8.2e+13 joules. Used to initiate a
fusion reaction in deuterium- this can be increased to 3.8e+14 joules
per kg of deuterium. Since deuterium is far more abundant - and
cleaner - this is method of choice.

So dividing 3.62e+21/3.8e+14 = 9,530 metric tons of deuterium.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003PhRvB..68f4204D

At 140 kg per cubic meter this requires a ten thousand tanks each If
spherical they would each be 2.35 meters in diameter and massing less
than 1 metric ton. Each is equipped with a HEU initiator - made from
surplus weapons systems - modified for this purpose. There is also a
5 tonne iron plate about 10 meters in diameter, and the hydrogen tank
is actually shaped as well around the plate - to produce a shaped
charge - only a few meters thick. The surface of each charge is
covered with MEMs based rocket array providing a propulsive skin;

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/mrcl/rockets.html

think of an HDTV covered with rockets - instead of pixels - and
instead of 3 colors - there are three arrays - each pointing in a
different direction orthogonal to the other two - whose resultant of
the triad of engines in each thrustel - points normal to the
propulsive surface.

The same super-heavy RLV that puts up 21 km diameter inflatable
powersats also places 100 charges into orbit toward this (or any
other) asteroid. Each charge provides 1/10,000th of the total delta
vee for the mission. Each launcher provides 1% of the delta vee.
100 launches over the course of 6 months allows 100 satellites - each
with 100 charges - to arrive above Cruithne - the mission is then
carried out over the course of a 10 hours - with one blast occuring
every 3 seconds - and the next blast precisely positioned and oriented
- on the basis of the delta vee imparted by the preceding charges.

~ BG


As per usual - you are misinformed or incompletely informed and have
made erroneous conclusions based on that misinformation.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lunar Space Elevator simply isnt for everyone
    ... As to an LL-1 based sizable asteroid tethered to the Moon, ... You do realize that a millionth of the surface area of mother Earth ... About energy, uh, there is a lot of recycling to be done. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Mining the Moons of Mars
    ... you'd see the moon shine like a beacon - despite its 8% albedo. ... Full moonshine of the visual spectrum does not illuminate Earth by ... moon Cruithne 3753, at not 1% the cost of doing a Mars moon? ... doesn't orbit Earth - in fact its bean shaped orbit from Earth's ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Near Earth Objects - a resource for the 21st century
    ... Why isn't our Selene/moon considered as a "Near Earth Object"? ... Is there some other moon in ratio to it's planet that's nearer or more ... close to Earth's orbit exist. ... 433 Eros, by NASA's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous probe, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: AHH, Shouldnt we panic about the ASTEROID coming near Earth tomorrow??
    ... They say there is nothing to fear since the Asteroid ... will be passing around NOON at 1.1 the distance from ... Earth to the Moon on July 3.... ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: AHH, Shouldnt we panic about the ASTEROID coming near Earth tomorrow??
    ... They say there is nothing to fear since the Asteroid ... Earth to the Moon on July 3.... ... The distance from Dallas, TX to El Paso, TX is 570 miles. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)