Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Void · 2022-03-28 18:50:42

Mostly continuing with post #122, but also those after that, Two Words:

Cabeus Crater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabeus_(crater)

https://www.universetoday.com/154544/on … et-impact/ Quote:

One Crater on the Moon is Filled with Ice and Gas that Came from a Comet Impact

n particular, they focused on the abundances of four elements (hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur) as they relate to carbon. The results indicated that the crater material is not volcanic in origin and is more likely delivered by a comet that impacted the Moon less than a billion years ago. In other words, the water ice and volatiles in the crater were delivered by the very impactor that created it. As co-author Dr. Lizeth Magaña – a recent graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio-SwRI who recently joined JHUAPL – explained:
“Based on the ratios measured and the composition of comets, such as Rosetta spacecraft measurements of Comet 67P, comets are likely the primary source of these volatiles. Impact gardening, a term referring to impacts that churn and enrich the uppermost regolith of moons and other airless bodies, is perhaps the next most important contributor for seeding the Cabeus crater with volatiles. With all the various sources to consider, ruling out the internal volcanic source with this study helps a lot.”

I think that if you slam this materials into a Crater like Cabeus, you will get a much better than 60% recovery to condensate solids. So, if you have an effective way to get a ball of this stuff(s) to that slamming event, you could feed a Moon branch of the human civilizations. The Moon is getting much more attractive. Actually it may even be that this stuff could come from Mars eventually, presuming a effective propulsion method.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-moon … HV20101021
Quote:

The U.S. space agency NASA sent the rocket to the permanently shadowed moon crater Cabeus last October to see what would, literally, pop up. Several reports published in the journal Science show some surprising findings, including a large amount of water in the form of ice, carbon monoxide, ammonia and the silvery metals.

-------

The previous suggests quite a few things to me.
-The Moon will be an excellent target for human efforts.
-World killing Comets do occur.
-I think that a glancing blow from a very large Comet, could have produced Phobos and Deimos, and could have stimulated a wet period for Mars, at least once.

And.....

A long time ago, I read that if you slammed a block of ice into the Moon on the dark side, 60% of it would survive on the surface until morning. The apparent results for the comet hitting Cabeus, include the survival of Ammonia, CO, and I expect CO2. I also think it is likely that Hydrocarbons will be found.

From post #122:
I do have this:

Where I have previously suggested a Cone, with multiple floors as you melt downwards, it could be a linear creation. These might join Lava Tubes together. The depth of these? I think they could be really deep. You could have trains going through them, maybe even aircraft?

So, then humans would find out how Earth life reacts to 1/6th gravity and would have opportunity to find ways to improve human health under such conditions.

-----

Elon Musk and Tesla will also likely do the Tesla Bot. Have we thought through the results of that? A vast labor pool in contact with vast amounts of raw materials and energy, I predict a very high standard of living on the Moon, and the export of metals and manufactured items to Earth and Mars and other places.

It may be true at this time that it will not be economical to manufacture Steel and the like on the Moon to ship to Earth, but with a very large and very cheep labor pool interacting with all those raw materials. And this could help to solve our energy needs, as solar concentrators and other equipment might become affordable and effective.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-13 11:48:05)

Void · 2022-03-29 06:06:18

Continuing......

I have respect for Dr. Robert Zubrin. But I will use his words as I remember them to argue my thinking in the direction of upgrading non-Mars activities.

1) Mars has all the chemicals similar to Earth, for a "Civilization". Well, it appears that the Moon and Ceres(Other Asteroids), do as well. Mars has the most, possibly with the possibility that Ceres may beat it out. The Moon has some.

2) If you are going to go to Mars, "Go to Mars". If you are going to go to the Moon, "Go to the Moon". Pretty good thinking. And so now we can understand that after all we have three old targets that all have merit.

a) Moon
b) Mars
c) Ceres/Asteroids.

All of these can become accessible by the expected tools of space technology on the horizon.

If SpaceX needs 1000 ships to establish a 1,000,000 person city on Mars, then a further solution to "What to do", would be to build 100 ships for working with the Moon, and 100 more ships to work with the Asteroids. Of course SpaceX is not likely to be the only "Provider".

In the case of the Moon, there are likely to be a very large number of "Virtual Inhabitants". That is a flesh person on the surface of the Earth, being paired with a version of a "Tesla Bot" suitable for Lunar environments. The life support for the human donated by the environment of the Earth, the "Amplified Reach", of the Tesla Bot, giving the promise of creation of material assets on the Moon. Avitar after all, and suitable people who can be productive, licensed/employed to "Drive" such a machine on the Moon. You sit/lie down in a quiet booth on the Earth, and then open your eyes on the Moon. Build stuff. Suff built, in part then to support Mars and Asteroid efforts.

Materials less abundant on the Moon, then to be brought back from Mars/Asteroids, to slam into the Lunar poles. We now know that you don't need to soft land the stuff. Hard Slamming will do.

The improvement of environments will be of interest. Magnetic fields. Moon, Mars, Ceres, ?.

While the Earth's magnetic field is considered a "Shield", could artificial fields for these other worlds be designed as "Sponges"? You let the solar wind in, but do not let it out. So, leaky on the sun or windward side, and stronger on the darker or leeward side. The Earth's field occasionally leaks a bit, and so the solar wind can penetrate a bit so this would be a thing to study.

Calliban has mentioned a very thin atmosphere of sorts for some smaller worlds.

Here: "Index» Terraformation» Tiny Atmospheres For Small Worlds", at this time posts #1-#4 are in place. #4 is just me being a cheer leader. http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10081

Again:
From post #122: (Of this topic),
I do have this:
That then being a source of Oxygen to release/leak to the surface of our Moon, where we have a Sponge Magnetic Field in place. Then the hope is to collect the solar wind to mix with Oxygen. The hoped for result would be water, and Helium as products, and probably traces of other items.

Solar powered "Hot Plates" might assist in the "Burning of solar wind Hydrogen with the thin Oxygen atmosphere of the Moon that would have been created. Just shine a bunch of Heliostats on a plate, the plate perhaps having a catalyst surface.

Tiny impactors may also contribute volatile substances to the Lunar Sponge.

A "Lumpy" Lunar Magnetic field would allow orbital spacecraft to use magnetic methods to move through the Hill Sphere of the Moon. Of course Mass Drivers, Tethers, and the previously mentioned materials slam methods allowing for commerce of the Moon, in conjunction with the Earth, Mars, and Asteroids.

All "Good Stuff", I feel. Abundance? Probably.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-03-29 06:37:17)

Void · 2022-03-29 08:41:17

You might wonder what Kelp might have to do with the Moon.
https://thefishsite.com/articles/a-tech … ure-output
Quote:

A technique that can quadruple kelp aquaculture output

Well, I suppose someday humans might have underground seas on the Moon, where plants like Kelp could grow. I don't want to limit potentials.

However, I am thinking of the Earth in this particular post. I recommend a full reading of the article.

I would not go so far as to say this this is an up and running method. But it does seem to have potential.

Things I am sort of sure of to a degree are;
-The soils will thin out over time.
-There is likely some warming from emissions into the atmosphere.
-Hydrocarbons are limited as fossil fuels.
-Societies are Manic Depressive in nature over time.
-Newsfeed makes money for some people.
-Old World alpha types wish to dominate societies, do not like individuality.

There are more, but I would like to address the last one in the above list. Just a little. We seem to have these who feel that the human race is not good enough, so they try to generate a "Superman". These are both of the familiar type and also the "Golden Man". The Golden Man is supposed to be a hybrid of all humans to presumably contain all the best attributes. It is silly, because it is going to be quite hard to have in one person, the ability to be very strong in battle, but resistant to starvation. That is just an example.

In the case of Hitler, I seem to recall that he intended that either the Aryans or the so called Jews would rule. We get the impression that they wanted golden haired dandies, but in realty, I feel that these people felt that cruelty could be used to fetch up a superior race of humans. The cruelty they inflicted on the Germans and their type was indeed to appeal to their vanity, and feelings of oppression, their frustrations, and to send them in mass to die on the battlefields.

For the Jews, it was the extermination which was not completed. However, I feel that if you could ask them they might have said that they improved both groups by weeding out the weaklings.

I don't agree at all, but I think I can see inside their heads to a degree.

Where I am going with this at this point is that we seem to have a lot of "Disturbers of the Peace". Once again frustration. Once again, we need to give our fates to people "Who know what to do".

I am talking about some politicians, a lot of news organizations, and lots of various gangs of "The concerned".

I do believe in freedom of speech, and will prefer to tolerate it's errors, but I want to also say that we seem to have a lot of "Disturbers of the Peace" these days. I don't like it.

As far as I can see, there seems to be some forces that tend to want to inflame wounds rather than to treat them.
I would expect such to try to stifle the Kelp thing and would likely try to promote something that would not work, in it's place.

Remember, their plans are to stimulate some Darwinist result from the application of cruelty. And then they will hope to be allow their just destiny to be in charge of such. Of course I don't like such people at all and don't want them to have power either.

But about the Kelp....

The fertilizer problem is solved. Overuse of farmland is treated. Utilization of underused photons occurs.

I can see that the Kelp in some cases can be food for animals and perhaps even humans.
It could be fermented to make Hydrocarbons.
The remnant could be fed to fish, to generate food.
The fish poo can sink to the bottom of the oceans, to remove Carbon from the active biosystem.

So, it is a solar biological energy and food system.

It may also be possible to have orbital mirrors that add photons to certain locations. Much of the oceans are virtual deserts, so those locations may be OK for this.

However, certainly not for strongly active locations where unique biology exists, with endangered species.

Per Isaac Arthur, adding sunlight with mirrors will not heat up the Earth that much. Removing CO2 will likely cool it off.

Good enough for now.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-03-29 09:19:42)

Calliban · 2022-03-29 10:08:02

Void, that is interesting re Cabeus crater. There has been speculation in the past about how much of the material of impactors is trapped within craters. Impact velocities are so high that it is easy to imagine that no volatile materials remain after impact. Now it would appear that we know exactly where to dig to access volatiles on the moon.

Void · 2022-03-29 12:00:39

It seems so.

I sort of said 100 Starships for the Moon. But if you could fly each 1 time a month, that would be 24 visits for each over about 2 years. At the same time 1000 ships would visit Mars. Certainly not precise math.

As for refilling propellant, if the Carbon is there, some of the South pole locations are very sunny, and no dust storms.

In reality Ships might be shuffled between Mars, Moon, and LEO duties.

But then we can add in the likelihood that additional types of machines will be deployed.

From the Angry Astronaut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icVBX12ySfk

So, for the Moon, something lighter, once, a base has been set up.

I think that forms of Starship would work with such a device, to further develop the Moon.

With Tesla Bots, and 3D printing and other manufacture methods on the Moon the need to provide massive hardware for the Moon activities will taper off.

I will not wear out the readers with detailed suggestions of the structure of that Moon future. Options are going to be interesting.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-03-29 12:15:37)

Void · 2022-03-30 09:32:45

I guess this post, I am thinking about how outdated the notion of ignoring the Moon and Asteroids to focus on Mars is. It is outdated because emerging technology, do not fit into its outdated, constraining necessity.

And this all might fit into the Earth's supposed "Climate Crisis". Indeed, I think that the Earth has had a history of having a surprisingly stable climate over long stretches of time, but even with that, most of its existence has not been like its current nature.

I am of the opinion that that "Kelp" article points to a promising direction. Lots of nutrients in the cold water of the Oceans. Lots of unused photons in the upper layers of the oceans. A manipulation may join these to at least buy time, and more likely in conjunction with other actions, to solve the problem longer term. Of course, we cannot keep the Earth as it is, forever, for various reasons where things change over time.

Being totally honest, with Tesla Bots, and there like on the Moon, we can anticipate a vast labor pool, of low-level consumers. Even Teala Bots, will consume resources in their building and maintenance. So, that might cause a limit to numbers, and/or alternate construction methods.

For those who are now cringing, understand, I do not advocate the abandonment of Mars or that it needs to wait for the Moon. I think this decision tree is rooted in the existence of hardware types. What can work for Mars can work for the Moon with some modifications. It also can work for other places in the solar system.

I understand that SpaceX throws out numbers like 1000 Starships, and 1,000,000 people on Mars. Almost not the true number in the end, but good markers to define an "Outer Envelope", a goal to seek after.

Where there is an "Outer Envelope" there is also an "Inner Envelope". For Falcon 9 + 2nd stage, currently the Falcon 9 1st Stage remains in the inner envelope where re-use has been strongly implemented. But 2nd Stage is strictly outer envelope and is not currently re-used.

SpaceX proposes to push the outer envelope to Mars, but even the inner envelope. So, that is very ambitious. But for both the Moon and Mars, they also propose missions where the ship stays on the last world it landed on. Not be discarded, but to be repurposed.

As for the 2nd stage Falcon 9, that eventually could be re-used or re-purposed, although I would not be surprised if SpaceX elected not to do so. But thinking about them doing it may point to a direction that I would like pointed to.

They could simply retrieve the 2nd stage and bring it down in a Starship. Or they could refill it and re-use it. Not optimal, the engines are not as efficient as Raptor 2's, and the fuel is not the same. However, the fuel may be more stable in LEO. Retrieving the 2nd stages to a collection point, would also be a problem, perhaps too much of a problem. But still, I want to think further about it.

Could you convert a Falcon 9 2nd stage into a Moon Lander? Add Legs, and such? I am still not saying you would want to rather I am just looking at the possibility, and wondering if you want such a device, or the eventual production of a more updated version of it.

Such a ship would be lighter and not so much of Stainless Steel. But a "Hard" Starship, I presume is anticipated to be able to land on a Lunar Landing Pad, Aerobrake from the Moon into the Earth's atmosphere, and also, I hope, be able to Aerobrake into LEO.

In practice, I would think that you would seldom land a "Hard Starship" on the Moon. You would instead support from orbit, other landers.
Other landers could be an evolved 2nd Stage of Falcon 9, and/or a "Lunar Starship", (Deep Space Starship).

A "Composit Lander", based on the 2nd Stage Falcon 9 technology, but evolved over time, could leave it's "Legs Kit", on the Lunar surface, to be feed to 3D printers. At first it would use the engines and fuel that it currently does. But if the production of Methane is possible on the Moon in suitable quantities, then the ship might have different engines, and convert to Methalox.

Over time the Falcon 9 1st stage would be retired, and the 2nd stage would evolve into a useful tool. Of course if the 1st stage is retired, then some other ship would have to bring the result of the evolution of the 2nd stage to LEO.

Enough for now.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-03-30 10:16:35)

Void · 2022-03-30 10:32:52

Oh, I had another imagination thing based on the previous post.

Supposing you had a collection of Falcon 9 2nd stages in LEO or somewhere else, and you put them into a frame, series or parallel or both, you could then refill them and use them in a staged fashion to send a payload somewhere. Of course, this might litter interplanetary space with discarded hardware, but for a special mission it might make sense.

I am aware that it is already being considered to produce a super-probe with a Starship itself. I have only mentioned the above as a stimulant for the imaginations of the young. I hope it does not lead them down the wrong pathways but will expand the set of possible notions of what could be.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-03-30 10:33:33)

Void · 2022-04-01 19:20:00

The query "Carbon on the Moon":

https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13521#:~:tex … timescales.

Cold Traps:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 151010.htm

Hints that the Moon did not form as it commonly thought:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ca … ORM%3DVDRE

Carbon Monoxide fire fountains on the Moon:
https://www.seeker.com/carbon-monoxide- … 64122.html
Quote:

The researchers also point out that the concentrations of carbon in the lunar melts is basically the same as what is found in Earth basalts that erupted from the mid-ocean ridges.
Saal and colleagues previously showed that Earth and the moon have similar concentrations of water and other volatiles, as well as similar ratios of hydrogen isotopes.
ANALYSIS: Volcanoes Erupted 'Recently' on the Moon
The studies have implications for ongoing efforts to determine how the moon formed. The leading theory is that Earth was hit by a Mars-sized object early in its history and that the debris eventually melded together to form the moon. How a common pool of volatiles could have survived the impact has yet to be resolved.
"The volatile evidence suggests that either some of Earth's volatiles survived that impact and were included in the accretion of the Moon or that volatiles were delivered to both the Earth and Moon at the same time from a common source -- perhaps a bombardment of primitive meteorites," Saal said in a statement.

Quote strange to say the least.

I am guessing that if you drilled down on the Moon where these "Fire Fountains" were, you might get something. I do not expect that the outgassing was 100% efficient.

From things I have read, both H20 and CO2 were detected by Apollo, but they dismissed it as bad measurements. India seems to have detected possible CO2 around 2010.

But I will leave it at that.....The Moon has an unknown amount of Carbon.

From China: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-29/S … index.html
Quote:

A previous study has shown that impacts are one of the main sources of water on the moon, along with volcanic eruptions and solar wind.

And of course in the a previous post a comet deposited ice in a crater as well, Cabeus crater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabeus_(crater)

So, some questions about Carbon. I guess they are going to have to look at it some more.

Done.

Well, I guess I will do a little more.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/scient … emissions/
Quote:

Scientists report lunar carbon emissions
And that raises questions about the Moon’s past.

[Japanese scientists have reported observing carbon ions persistently emitting from the lunar surface.
Given that the prevailing theory for the Moon’s formation strongly relies on the notion of a volatile-depleted modern Moon, they say, these findings could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of how it actually came to exist.
“Our estimates demonstrate that indigenous carbon exists over the entire Moon, supporting the hypothesis of a carbon-containing Moon, where the carbon was embedded at its formation and/or was transported billions of years ago,” they write in the journal Science Advances.
Lead author Shoichiro Yokota, from Osaka University, says early analyses of samples from the Apollo lunar missions led scientists to believe that volatile elements were a thing of the Moon’s past. However, analyses in the last decade have challenged this “dry” Moon hypothesis, revealing the presence of volatile water and carbon in volcanic lunar glass.
To assess whether indigenous carbon exists on the present-day Moon, Yokota and colleagues used a map of lunar carbon ion emissions derived from observation data taken by the KAGUYA lunar orbiter over 18 months.
Speculating that there may be an additional, external source for the carbon emissions observed by the orbiter, they estimated the average carbon atoms from the solar wind (the flow of charged particles from the Sun) and from collisions with volatile-rich micrometeoroids, both of which supply carbon to the Moon.
They determined that neither source is capable of supplying the quantity of carbon atoms the Moon regularly emits.
They also report regional differences in lunar carbon ion emissions, with the Moon’s large, basaltic plains emitting far more carbon than the highlands – differences they say can best be explained by ancient stores of carbon rather than contributions from outside sources.
Yokota and colleagues say their study also suggests that volatile particles emitted from other small bodies in the Solar System could be effectively observed using ion instruments.
“We, thus, plan to perform secondary ion observations around Mercury and Phobos during the BepiColombo/Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter and the Martian Moons eXploration missions, respectively,” they write.

Originally published by Cosmos as Scientists report lunar carbon emissions

So, two things:

1) If the younger regolith gives off more Carbon than the Older regolith, shouldn't we suppose that if we dig down below the broken rock, that the volatile levels will go up? It seems to me that Carbon would not be particularly mobile in the bedrock, so if it shows up on the surface, and the source is as said in the upper article not only from the solar wind or impactors, drilling down should show more, at least in some places.

2) Also, the Moon is thought to have had an atmosphere of significance at one time. It is thought to have had a magnetic field as well.
https://moon.nasa.gov/news/26/an-atmosp … -the-moon/
Quote:

NASA Research Suggests Significant Atmosphere in Lunar Past and Possible Source of Lunar Water

An Atmosphere Around the Moon?
Illustration of ancient volcanic activity on the Moon.
Illustration of ancient volcanic activity on the Moon.
NASA Research Suggests Significant Atmosphere in Lunar Past and Possible Source of Lunar Water
Looking up at the Moon at night, Earth’s closest neighbor appears in shades of gray and white; a dry desert in the vacuum of space, inactive and dead for billions of years. Like many things, though, with the Moon, there is so much more than what meets the eye.
Research completed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center planetary volcanologist Debra Needham in Huntsville, Alabama, and planetary scientist David Kring at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas, suggests that billions of years ago, the Moon actually had an atmosphere. The ancient lunar atmosphere was thicker than the atmosphere of Mars today and was likely capable of weathering rocks and producing windstorms. Perhaps most importantly, it could be a source for some, if not all, of the water detected on the Moon.
Color-enhanced illustration of the Moon.
A time sequence of lunar mare -- lava plain -- flows in 0.5 billion year time increments, with red areas in each time step denoting the most recently erupted lavas. The timing of the eruptions, along with how much lava was erupted, helped scientists determine that the Moon once had an atmosphere and that the lunar atmosphere was thickest about 3.5 billion years ago. Credits: NASA/MSFC/Debra Needham; Lunar and Planetary Science Institute/David Kring
“It just completely changes the way we think of the Moon,” said Needham, a scientist in Marshall’s Science and Technology Office. “It becomes a much more dynamic planetary body to explore.”
Needham will present the research at the annual Geological Society of America conference in Seattle on Oct. 22. The research paper, available online, will be published in the Nov. 15 issue of Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
Discovering the existence, thickness and composition of the atmosphere began with understanding how much lava erupted on the Moon 3.9 to one billion years ago, forming the lava plains we see as the dark areas on the surface of the Moon today. Needham and Kring then used lab analyses of lunar basalts -- iron and magnesium-rich volcanic rocks -- returned to Earth by the Apollo crews to estimate the amounts and composition of gases -- also called volatiles -- released during those volcanic eruptions.
The short-lived atmosphere -- estimated to have lasted approximately 70 million years -- was comprised primarily of carbon monoxide, sulfur and water. As volcanic activity declined, the release of the gases also declined. What atmosphere existed was either lost to space or became part of the surface of the Moon.
The researchers discovered that so much water was released during the eruptions -- potentially three times the amount of water in the Chesapeake Bay -- that if 0.1 percent of the erupted water migrated to the permanently shadowed regions on the Moon, it could account for all of the water detected there.
“We’re suggesting that internally-sourced volatiles might be at least contributing factors to these potential in-situ resource utilization deposits,” Needham said.
Water is one of the keys to living off of the land in space, also called in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). Knowing where the water came from helps scientists and mission planners alike know if the resource is renewable. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine the exact sources.
The first indication of water on the Moon came in 1994 when NASA’s Clementine spacecraft detected potential signatures of water-ice in the lunar poles. In 1998, NASA’s Lunar Prospector mission detected enhanced hydrogen signatures but could not definitely associate them to water. Ten years later, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and its partner spacecraft, the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), definitively confirmed the presence of water on the Moon. That same year, in 2008, volcanic glass beads brought back from the Moon by the Apollo 15 and 17 crews were discovered to contain volatiles, including water, leading to the research that indicates the Moon once had a significant atmosphere and was once much different than what we see today.
Casting one’s eyes at the Moon or viewing it through a telescope, the surface of the Moon today gives but a glimpse into its dynamic and complex history. Recent findings that propose Earth’s neighbor once had an atmosphere comparable to Mars’ continue to unravel the lunar past, while prompting scientists and explorers to ask more questions about Earth’s mysterious companion in the solar system.
To learn more about Marshall’s lunar and planetary science research visit: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/solarsystem.html.
To learn more about NASA’s research for solar system exploration visit: https://sservi.nasa.gov/.

So, water could have ponded on the Moon, and it had a dominantly CO atmosphere, and I am going to guess some CO2 as well. To me this indicates that the water soaked rock could have also absorbed Carbon compounds.

So, even if the Moon was bone dry before its atmosphere appeared, it would have had a wet surface and subsurface to a certain level. It is also possible that Water and Carbon rock has been covered by the ejecta from big cratering events. Maybe to some extent.

And Russia did detect water, or reported so: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … -union-evg
Quote:

logoDiscount codes Puzzles Horoscopes In Your Area Shop Paper
LOGINREGISTER
4°CFind us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterFind us on Instagram
HOME
NEWS
SHOWBIZ & TV
SPORT
COMMENT
FINANCE
TRAVEL
ENTERTAINMENT
LIFE & STYLE
UKPOLITICSWORLDROYALSCIENCEOBITUARIESHISTORYWEATHERWEIRDNATURESUNDAY
HomeNewsScience
Clive Myrie makes savage quip about Will Smith's Oscars slap on Have I Got News For You
'Scared' Kate and William 'jumped on bandwagon' after Meghan and Harry set media trend
The genius shopping trick every Amazon Prime Member should know
Capital One Shopping
Prince Harry's heartbreak as more Invictus Games members killed in Ukraine war
Countdown's Nick Hewer feared dead by co-stars after falling over drunk filming new show
by Taboola
Water on the Moon: Russia beat NASA to the discovery by almost 50 years - claim
WATER on the Moon was first discovered by the Russian space agency in the 1970s, according to Russian-state media who claim that NASA ignored their findings.
By SEAN MARTIN
11:14, Tue, Oct 27, 2020 | UPDATED: 11:14, Tue, Oct 27, 2020
5Comment sectionShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on PinterestCopy link
NASA find water on sunlit surface of moon with SOFIA telescope
Sign up for our news briefing, including a daily special Russia-Ukraine edition
Enter your email address here
SUBSCRIBE
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
NASA made a bombshell announcement on October 26, when it told the world that it had found trace amounts of water on the lunar surface. The space agency heralded the discovery, claiming it could help NASA establish a lunar base by tapping into the Moon's natural resources.

RELATED ARTICLES
NASA discovery: Space agency announces presence of Moon water
NASA breakthrough: Humans could travel to Mars in HALF the time
Paul Hertz, director of the Astrophysics Division in the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, said: “We had indications that H2O – the familiar water we know – might be present on the sunlit side of the Moon.
“Now we know it is there. This discovery challenges our understanding of the lunar surface and raises intriguing questions about resources relevant for deep space exploration.”
However, Russian-state media has claimed that the USSR actually discovered water on the Moon almost 50 years ago.

According to Sputnik, the USSR's Luna 24 discovered water when it went to our lunar satellite in 1976.
Sponsored
wubhoty
We are selling off our remaining magic metal windmills. Great garden decor.
by Taboola
nasa
Water on the Moon: Russia beat NASA to the discovery by almost 50 years - claim (Image: NASA)
moon
Soil samples from Luna 24 (Image: GETTY)
A paper in 1978 published in the journal of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, claimed that scientists had found trace evidence of water.
Although the English title of the 1978 paper was titled 'Possible Water in Luna 24 Regolith from the Sea of Crises', Sputnik said the Russian publication was more definitive.
The media outlet added that, because of the ongoing Cold War, Soviet research was often met with scepticism by scientists in the western world.
Sputnik said: "If NASA scientists had read a bit more work from their Soviet colleagues, they might have realised that the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 probe made this discovery in 1976.
"The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) dispatched dozens of probes to various objects in outer space, including the moon and Venus, making major contributions to humanity’s knowledge of the solar system.
moon
Phases of the Moon (Image: EXPRESS)
TRENDING
Putin in embarrassing U-turn as he drops both threat to cut Europe's gas and ruble demand
Putin in embarrassing U-turn as he drops both threat to cut Europe's gas and ruble demand
WHO Covid warning: New mutant 'XE' Omicron variant could be most transmissible yet
WHO Covid warning: New mutant 'XE' Omicron variant could be most transmissible yet
EU sending Putin £673m a DAY as Russia's economy 'returns to pre-war' level
EU sending Putin £673m a DAY as Russia's economy 'returns to pre-war' level
"However, their work was often ill-read by Western scientists."
In 2011, US scientists at Columbia University tested samples from the USSR's Luna 24, and found that roughly 0.1 percent of lunar soil consisted of water.
DON'T MISS
138366342012
138366328295
138366778792
138366340422

Powered by
Sputnik said: "According to Arlin Crotts, who was an astronomy professor at Columbia University until his death in 2015, the trio tested soil samples brought from the moon back to Earth by the Luna 24 probe.
"That probe had drilled two meters down into Mare Crisium and extracted 170 grams of lunar soil.
"By using infrared absorption spectroscopy, they proved the lunar soil was composed of roughly 0.1 percent water by mass, with more water appearing further below t

I think that .1 % water by mass is very significant. And if drilling down yielded more, who knows what might occur further down?

I know that for Apollo, they dismissed the water values as they thought their containers leaked after arrival at Earth. It also may be that the Moon is not uniformly the same some ejecta may have dried out. So, the Soviets may have just hit a wetter spot.

Anyway, it is apparent that Mars is more like the Earth than we used to think, and the Moon is more like Mars than what we used to think.

So, I think we should really be serious about inhabiting the Moon, if that holds to be proven true.

Done.

This again:
From post #122:
I do have this:

So, initially Volatiles can come from the poles. But if the above is true, I suggest that "Melt Mining" may yield not only Oxygen and Metals, but perhaps Volatiles.

An underground that also includes lava tubes could be established, with Melt chambers, and of course Boring Company tunnels as well. And extensive metal structures on the Moon's surface, and an export economy of manufactured goods.

Now I am done

Last edited by Void (2022-04-01 20:23:27)

Void · 2022-04-02 10:34:16

Leaving aside however it was that we got to the "Mars Roach Motel" problem, it is not a trap that can work against our desires anymore, so, perhaps it does not matter. Not a battle worth fighting anymore.

I still support the ambition to access Mars, but I do understand that the "Spill" of the operation, and that of other space entities should make access to the Moon rather easy. Perhaps NEO objects as well, but I am not sure how needed access to NEO's is going to be.

Of course, the things that are suspected of the Moon have to be confirmed, and further explored. But it seems like it can indeed be an excellent complement to what the Earth can do. A wonderful binary world situation.

For the Moon, solar energy has been cast as a failure. I don't agree at all. It seems like a perfect clockwork situation. You likely can predict solar energy distribution for centuries at least. All that is required is energy storage of strength, and even then, you don't need is so much for certain spots near the poles. Those would of course be where to start.

From there Lava Tubes would be a draw, and also if the vents for so called "Fire Fountains" might be a draw as well. I would not think that whatever fluid was powering those was entirely exhausted before they "Plugged Up". But there might be other situations of mining that could give Carbon and other things.

We have the case of Cabeus Crater, what happened to the special metals that would have been in the comet? https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/942989
I have seen some articles that mention not only water but other things, even Hydrocarbons. Not so surprising for the output of a partially cooked comet.

If a similar comet hit the Earth, a billion years ago, we can expect that any special metals that were in it would have been subducted into the interior of the Earth by now. But not so much for the Moon, or for that matter, perhaps Mars I am not anti-Mars, I want it all.

And the Moon and its associated outputs will simply be spill from efforts to access Mars. Some have not liked the idea that we should chain the progression up to one where we have to access the Moon to get to Mars. I can understand. But if the Moon and Mars run in parallel, then the Mars base will exist by the time the Moon is ready to supply massive amounts of hardware, and propellants and such. So, no need to cry.

I am rather focused on two things just now, the European/British machine to extract things from regolith and also nuclear powered spacecraft.

The regolith machine: https://www.freethink.com/space/lunar-r … surface%29.

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/01/how- … m-moondust

So this machine needs Calcium Chloride salts, which could be a problem.

Calcium is not a problem: https://www.permanent.com/lunar-geology … 0conductor.
Quote:

Calcium is the fourth most abundant element in the lunar highlands. Calcium oxides and calcium silicates are not only useful for ceramics, but pure calcium metal is an excellent electrical conductor.

I don't yet know about Chlorine on the Moon, but this was fetched in the searching:
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.20 … ng%20anode

So, 800 degrees C for the salt bath. Actually, just right, I would say. This can also be a thermal reservoir for electricity in the lunar nights.

The article also includes this, a higher temperature alternative:
Quote:

Self-assembling
A similar technique for oxygen extraction is being developed by Donald Sadoway at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but his process works at a much higher temperature of up to 1600 °C — which means that the Moon rock is molten and can act as the electrolyte itself. It produces molten metal, including iron, which sinks to the bottom. Fray says that his process is more efficient because it works at a lower temperature, but Sadoway insists that molten salt electrolysis, as his technique is called, makes up elsewhere for the extra heat it needs. "In Derek's process, the molten salt allows him to operate at a much lower temperature," says Sadoway, "but he still has to consolidate the Moon rock into a solid form." This is often difficult because of the fine sandy nature of Moon rock, he says.
Sadoway's reactor could even build itself. The interior would be Moon regolith — the powdery rubble that forms the Moon's surface — heated electrically to become molten, and the exterior would be solid regolith that has cooled. "We form the wall of the reactor by allowing the molten regolith to freeze," he says, but admits that starting the process is "tricky".
Sadoway says that with sufficient funding, he could have his system scaled up within two years. His process has been shortlisted by NASA and is receiving some funding from the agency. "Once we solve the materials problems at the lab scale we should be able to move quickly," he says.

In either case while working with crumbled surface regolith might be a good starting point, I would prefer to dig holes by melting/dissolving the bedrock. I don't know how possible that is but it would be pretty good if it can be done.

As I have said, if you can heat Lunar rock to 800 to 1600 degrees C, then you have no problem storing energy for the Lunar nights.

Well, it seems that there is Chlorine but you have decipher Scientese to understand. I still don't know if it is in a minable state.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26601265/

Calcium Chloride may not be needed for the higher temperature process.

Good enough for now.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-02 11:30:54)

Void · 2022-04-02 15:04:58

In passing, I make note that in the previous post, a reference quote, refers to Calcium as an excellent conductor. For Earth or Mars it would be no good as it corrodes in air and water. But for the Moon, it might serve. Of course so might Aluminum.

--------

In the previous post I refer to the spillage of human space activities going to Mars, onto our partner world the Moon.

I really Like that I picked up the word "World" to bypass the word planet or moon, as the nomenclature in this sentence is cumbersome. I can say that the Earth and Moon are binary worlds, but if I try to say binary planets, our language trips it up. And this is an example, in my opinion of how excessive or improper verbalizations can obscure intelligent thinking. We can have people who have so many words, but they have no vision. That can be very bad, as it will give command to the excessively verbal, and blind verbal people, to enslave those with vision.

The danger of improperly verbal people is that they can understand technology just enough to use killing weapons, and can organize with language into a killing hive mind. While in a simple Darwinist contest, they will test as superior, by my measure, I consider such people not to be superior at all, and to be an impediment to the retention of human abilities and true intelligence. A period of dark ages might likely be preceded by and excessively an improperly literate culture. They would eliminate the plumbers butt from their gene pool.

It is said that a crowd of idiots is an idiot. And, a crowd of genius people is also an idiot.

But individual autonomy might help to provide some escape from that problem. But we know that if we create protective devices, to ward off the hive(s), in short time those secrets will be sold for profit by someone to the hive minds. And so the attempts at oppression will resume.

The Madness of Crowds. Maybe this is the book. I am not sure: https://www.bing.com/images/search?view … ajaxserp=0

So, be careful. The one I have is very old. Not sure the above is the same. Otherwise you might get some woke crap, if you are not careful.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-02 15:31:57)

Void · 2022-04-02 15:26:43

The last post veered off course to a degree. I want to celebrate our good fortunes as per space hardware on the horizon.

One collection includes SpaceX, Terran-R, and Rocket Lab. Another collection I suppose might be said as being "Everything Else".
At least for this post I will indicate it that way.

We know SpaceX>Starship
Rocket Lab>Neutron

And Terran-R is if special interest for this post, at least to me.

https://spacecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Terran_R_(Rocket)

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Te … &FORM=VDRE

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Te … ORM%3DVDRE

So, if I read it correct, the system is slightly less powerful than Falcon 9, but is to be fully re-usable, and use Metha lox for engines.

It also would be sized well to be Dr. Robert Zubrin's desired Miini-Starship.

So, it might make a nice ship for the Moon, but might also be used for Mars.

For the Moon, I am speculating on a propellant Depot in proximity of the Moon, probably based on a Starship, but ideally delivered by electric rocket. While it is hoped that materials on the Moon will support the creation of Methane, even then, it might be nice to deliver Methane this way. Later if Oxygen can be produced on the Moon, then this ship would fill Oxygen on the surface of the Moon, and could fill Methane in the proximity of the Moon.

I like the notion of electric rocket delivery for the Depot, and also the return of the empty to LEO, it might work out OK. Not sure that it would Aerobrake. That would be cool, though if it could have the electric propulsion push it into the atmosphere for that purpose. But then you have to have a survival method for the electric propulsion system.

Just another possible way to do things I would say.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-02 15:41:39)

kbd512 · 2022-04-02 16:55:52

Void,

I think it has potential for small satellite delivery. It'd be great if it could land on a runway like a conventional aircraft.

Void · 2022-04-02 19:30:24

kbd512 said:

Void,
I think it has potential for small satellite delivery. It'd be great if it could land on a runway like a conventional aircraft.

I think that indeed in part that is why SpaceX is going all in on Starship, because other companies will be getting into that satellite business.

I think that as well as Starship supporting Starlink, a tanker ship(s), could be big business for SpaceX, provided they were willing to sell propellants to other entities.

And we really do have lots of good stuff on the horizon, Dream chaser for instance may inspire them to build another alternate upper stage.

I think that for the currently proposed, upper stage for Terran-R, it would really be great if just one Starship Tanker could fill it for a mission. That mission might be for the Moon or Mars, perhaps. I certainly cannot vouch for the only one tanker, but it would be a great wish to have filled.

In reality, 1,000,000 people in a city on Mars is a nice target, but pending favorable circumstances, I would suggest better 333,333 people on the Moon, 333,333 people on Mars, and perhaps 333,333 people on Ceres, and around it. Arbitrary numbers as well, but for instance Relativity Space hopes to actually build spaceships on Mars with 3D printers eventually. So, then why not the Moon and Ceres?

If so, then in the event of a loss of civilization on Earth, the three of them together may be able to help each other, and again you don't have all the eggs in one basket. But discovery will have to provide resources for each of them, or adjustments would be needed.

-------

In addition to the Metha Lox propellant companies mentioned so far, I hope to see more devices such as might be mentioned by "The Angry Astronaut". It is getting late in my days of life, but, "Fingers Crossed", I hope to see multiple systems active in the next 10 years.

That would be a really good send off for me, after so long that this did not happen.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-02 19:42:42)

Void · 2022-04-02 20:01:36

I keep forgetting to mention that I think that if a fleet of 1000 ships were to go to Mars on a Hohmann Transfer method it seems that for Propellant Starships there will large dead time intervals. In those situations it might be that propellants for a Moon operation might be lifted to LEO.

And then also, it is perhaps easy to forget how often ships could visit the Moon relative to how often they could visit Mars. Setting up a Moon settlement, beyond a base could happen at a really rapid rate, provided that the resources desired were properly confirmed as existing.

And relatively early on experiments in Avatar technology could occur, perhaps even with Tesla Bots. This would be one way humans could visit another world. A virtual/Avatar activity Earth>Moon.

It would be a pretty big thing I feel.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-02 20:09:13)

Void · 2022-04-03 09:07:33

Well, this begins what I am up to today. It will start with Moon mining but I intend to integrate that to our whole solar system:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questio … m.%20Share
Quote Question:

How deep could a lunar mine go?
Asked 4 years, 5 months ago
Modified 5 months ago
Viewed 712 times
29

2
Mine shafts on earth are limited in how deep they can go by 2 things, internal heat and rock pressure. The deepest mine on earth currently is just under 4 kilometers. There is internal heat on the moon caused by tidal pressures, but it is very deep. The motion core is a tiny portion of the whole compared to the earth. With 1/6th G gravity, I wonder how deep you could go before rock pressure got higher than the compressive strength of the rock? I'm guessing pretty far. My question is; how deep could a lunar mine go before heat or rock pressure made it impractical?
the-moon
mining
natural-resources
Share
Improve this question
Follow
edited Oct 17, 2021 at 11:02
user avatar
Fred
10.2k33 gold badges3030 silver badges6767 bronze badges
asked Oct 19, 2017 at 2:31
user avatar
Johnny Robinson
4,4741717 silver badges33

Quote "Some Answers":

4
I think it was here I learned that the pressure at the center of Ceres is less than in the deepest operating mine on Earth. That's 935 km of Ceres diameter compared to 1737 of the Moon. –
LocalFluff
Oct 19, 2017 at 4:08
2
Interesting question! No idea. –
GdD
Oct 19, 2017 at 7:39
4
Can you elaborate on "impractical"? Currently putting a small, lonely rover on the Moon is not even practical; otherwise there wouldn't be a $30 million X-prize for it. –
uhoh
Oct 19, 2017 at 9:30
I'm talking in the context of a lunar settlement having been established and they are exploiting local resources for manufacture and so on. So by practical the implication is that when the rock temperature exceeds 130F and the rock pressure became difficult to hold back. Many hard rock mines a couple miles deep still need no roof support. It's interesting that the surface of the moon is aluminum rich but it becomes iron rich as you get deeper. –
Johnny Robinson
Oct 20, 2017 at 4:30
I think I once saw some data about how the temperature rises as you go deeper into the moon. I'll keep looking for that. The rock pressure thing is the hard part. –
Johnny Robinson
Oct 20, 2017 at 4:36
Show 2 more comments
2 Answers
Sorted by:
Highest score (default)
7
I came here with the same question. While rock pressure is one issue, I think the limiting factor is actually heat.
The most recent paper I could find on Lunar temperature gradients is Nimmo 2012, which gives a gradient of 2.5C/km starting from 30C near the surface. As the deepest mine on Earth is apparently limited by a temperature of 66C, it follows that the deepest 'traditional' mine on the Moon should be ~14km.
That Wikipedia article is sourced from Wired's 2012 article Digging for Riches in the World’s Deepest Gold Mine.
That said, the highest temperature borehole I could find on Earth is 355C, and again it follows that the deepest borehole on the Moon should be ~130km.
Share
Improve this answer
Follow
edited Aug 18, 2019 at 23:54
user avatar
uhoh
148k4646 gold badges416416 silver badges12541254 bronze badges
answered Aug 18, 2019 at 21:22
user avatar
Andy Jones
17111 silver badge33 bronze badges
Thank you. That gradient is significant information. I don't see how you get 66C at 14 km. Maybe it's the starting point. I once asked what the ambient underground temperature was at about 3m down, and I was told it was -23 C. So, heavy coat weather in an uninsulated pressurized cave. Using that as a starting point, at 15 Km down I get a comfortable 15.5 C. (correct my math if I'm wrong) The point is that, if the rock pressure isn't an issue, there is an ideal depth for a colony based on ambient temperature. –
Johnny Robinson
Aug 19, 2019 at 23:52
Fig 2 in Nimmo starts at 300K (30C) at 0km depth. Presumably the gradient is much steeper in the first few meters than it is deeper down. –
Andy Jones
Aug 20, 2019 at 0:06
Add a comment
4
If we just look at rough numbers, we know the gravity on the moon is 1/6th that of Earth so a mine shaft should go to a depth six times as deep as on Earth. So if the deepest shaft on Earth is just under 4 Km, then the deepest shaft on the moon should be shy of 24 Km.
Share
Improve this answer
Follow
answered Oct 30, 2017 at 18:21
user avatar
Charles Lee Lesher
5111 bronze badge
1
+1 This is probably as good as an answer can get. One could calculate more detailed gravity vs depth models for the local density and get a number maybe 10% or 15% different, but the uncertainty and large variability of any particular mineral composition and the strength against collapse from one mine site to another is a much bigger uncertainty. However you may want to add that the temperature rise as a function of depth will be much less important for the Moon. –
uhoh
Oct 30, 2017 at 23:29
@uhoh why would the temperature rise with depth be less important? The gradient is purely dependent on the material type and thickness, and the starting temperature of -21C does not give a huge advantage. –
CuteKItty_pleaseStopBArking
Oct 17, 2021 at 12:45
1
@PcMan The Moon's heat flux is 18-24% of the Earth's average heat flux of 87 milliwatts per square meter. The small value of the lunar heat flow was expected, given the Moon's small size and the observation that it has been nearly dead volcanically for the last 3 billion years See also space.stackexchange.com/a/26503/12102 Links to supporting sources with actual data are better than unsupported "speculative explanations" –
uhoh
Oct 17, 2021 at 15:00
I think the moon crust is less dense as well, so we could go even deeper if we are limited by pressure. –
fraxinus
Oct 17, 2021 at 19:28

Well, from the above, we could have some interesting thinking. Granted, it is likely that if useful materials cannot be dug up with a mining operation, or can otherwise be obtained, you might not dig that far down.

I will also say that the Moon may provide "Dry Cooling" so that you could dig deeper. That could involve circulating fluids, and averaging the temperatures of the rock above with that below, and also the surface of the Moon faces the universe without significant atmospheric thermal effects. You could build radiators and again circulate fluids. But I am not at all sure that there would be a need to dig so deep.

Query: "Soviets discovery of water on the Moon"
Evidence for water in the Moons regolith:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/0 … e%20result.
This one is better:
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/nasa-j … 16214.html

Anyway, they reported .1% water and more the deeper they drilled.
Apollo data was lost or presumed as leakage of the regolith containers after arrival at Earth. You need to consider that at the time, there likely existed many forces in the USA that wanted to destroy the Crewed space program or hobble it. But that suggests conspiracy. Not worth the battle, as we live now, not then, and many of them are already in the graveyard. No reason to need to punish them, even if they disserve punishment.

More and more, it may be suggested that the "Dry Moon" notion was FALSE.

This will help in supporting a Moon that is not so dry: https://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/10/ … atmosphere.
OOPS! Quote:

The Moon's ancient atmosphere
For nearly 70 million years, the Moon had an atmosphere formed by volcanic gas.
By Jake Parks | Published: Friday, October 6, 2017

Well, that sort of destroys the "Immediate Dry Moon Notion". That would have supposed that incandescent rock in orbit of the Earth would have completely outgassed all water and Carbon. But if you rely on the theory of collision for the sole factor of the formation of the Moon, first you have a vast compression of the rock that is to become the Moon, and then splashing out to orbit, and in orbit zero g forces on the smaller stuff, and low g for any larger pieces. In the zero g or perhaps even low g conditions, without gravity how could volatiles bubble out of the molten rock? During the initial compression, gasses would likely stay dissolved in the rock.

---
Dust:
And now we can presume that some of the materials might have ended up as dust and other particles. The solar wind might have injected protons into those.

So, water for Earth from interplanetary dust soaked in the Solar Wind. Then why not the Moon? Well maybe the magnetic fields might interfere, but I don't know yet.
https://www.space.com/24422-solar-wind- … -dust.html
Quote:

Solar wind can form water on interplanetary dust, potentially adding to the primordial soup that gave rise to life on Earth, scientists say.
On Earth, there is life virtually everywhere water is found. Past research suggests much of this water may have come to Earth from comets raining down on the planet. But scientists have suggested another source of water in the airless void of space — the continuous flow of charged particles from the sun, a stream known as the solar wind.
This wind consists primarily of protons, the positively charged nuclei of hydrogen atoms. When these particles slam against oxygen-laden rocks — for instance, minerals known as silicates — they could in principle form water molecules.
Sponsored Links
The Most Realistic PC Game of 2022
Raid Shadow Legends
Click here for more Space.com videos...
The creation of water via the solar wind could help explain the presence of water on the moon and on asteroids. The wind could also have formed water on interplanetary dust, which, in turn, could have rained water down on Earth and other rocky planets.
"Interplanetary dust continually lands on the Earth and other solar system bodies," said study co-author Hope Ishii, an astromaterials scientist at the University of Hawaii. In the present day, Earth receives about 30,000 to 40,000 tons of interplanetary dust per year. This amount is thought to have been considerably higher when the Earth was young, because there was more interplanetary dust drifting through the solar system.
Intriguingly, interplanetary dust is also known to possess more carbon-laden organic molecules than any other known class of meteoritic material. Such dust "may well have acted as a continuous rainfall of little reaction vessels containing both the water and organics needed for the eventual origin of life," Ishii said.

---

But back to that temporary atmosphere of the Moon. That also might have come from a subsequent bombardment, maybe with a lot of comets. So, the formation theory that only includes one event for the formation of the Moon, and suggests a Dry Moon, apparently is lame.

---

Magma Oceans and Seas on the Moon.....
Well, I like this one a lot, perhaps it is the thing, maybe not???
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/earth- … -the-moon/
Quote:

Earth magma ocean ended up on the moon

So, in this case I would presume that the Earth had an atmosphere of some kind, and that gasses were dissolved into the Magma that formed the Moon. As I said before, due to high compression the gasses would not bubble out, and then due to Zero g, the gasses would also not bubble out.

But if it quickly formed into a giant ball of Magma, then I suppose gasses could bubble out, but I expect that Henry's laws apply similar to how they apply to water. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids,_Henry's_Law#:~:text=Henry%27s%20Law%201%20C%20is%20the%20solubility%20of,of%20the%20gas%20%28often%20in%20units%20of%20atm%29
Quote:

Henry's Law
CCBYNCSA
Last updatedFeb 17, 2021
Raoult's Law
Non-ideal Solutions
picture_as_pdf
Readability
Cite this page
Donate
Henry's law is one of the gas laws formulated by William Henry in 1803 and states: "At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid." An equivalent way of stating the law is that the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid:
C=kPgas(1)
where
C is the solubility of a gas at a fixed temperature in a particular solvent (in units of M or mL gas/L)
k is Henry's law constant (often in units of M/atm)
Pgas is the partial pressure of the gas (often in units of atm)

I am only partially acquainted with the above. Not an expert.

So, how much pressure do you have in magma one Kilometer down? Plenty, I expect. 100 km down? Lots more.

If I understand then, the surface of the Moon would have cooled, and I think the highlands would have outgasses quite a bit, near the surface. They would have gotten heavy by cooling and would then sink in the Magma, and lower down fluids would form the Mare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_mare

I am only partially competent in this dialog, but it is a start. That could explain why the Highlands shed less Carbon than the Mare? Granted time also would be a potential factor.

But for a pool of magma, how efficient is convection on the Moon. A lower gravity field, so less convection. So, maybe in places a better retention of volatile substances as you dig down.

The existence of a temporary atmosphere gives it away. There could not be volcanic activity that produced that and a complete loss of volatiles from the freezing magma. And I think it might even be true that there might be ore concentrates that would have more volitiles.

Something to search for.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-03 10:03:13)

Void · 2022-04-03 10:06:34

It is my opinion that a speech impediment, or similar issue, may indeed cause the brain to develop other skills, different skills.

https://www.dyslexia.com/famous/richard-branson/

And this could be our exit from the tyranny of the verbal hive mind structures of the human race. The hive minds breed out awareness. Words can conceal reality.

Done.

Eugenics of the defective, has been applied historically, but it removes possibilities. Possibilities obviously allow change, and change may bring improvements.

So, Eugenics is not the path to a "Superman". Actually, it is a path back to the Stone Age. Our societies material ability to tolerate oddballs, is likely what has removed us from Stone Age means of existence. That and the lack of detection of certain odd characteristics.

Genetic and social deviations to some extent tolerated might have bootstrapped the human race out of such older modes of genetic pruning.

That is, the ability to generate excess wealth, then provides more tolerance for deviations that can perhaps in some cases offer a pathway to more wealth.

We should be wary of social entities that entertain the notion that suffering is a good thing, especially for "The Others". I don't consider the process of nailing other people to crosses to be particularly what God would have in mind.

Hormesis can be good for you though. Usually that comes from self-motivation though, except perhaps in the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-03 10:28:05)

Void · 2022-04-03 10:43:35

Well, I am hoping for a less dry Moon, one with enough of what is needed and desired.

I would like to suggest that the Moon, our partner world might become the solar systems hardware center, and perhaps a source of Oxygen local to the Earth/Moon sub-system.

So then returning to hardware systems that might help that occur.

It does seem to me that Terran-R may have an advantage, as it will have a favorable surface area vs. mass and volume, suitable for aerobraking. Also, it may be based in more land areas than would be Starship. And it might be a better ship for the Moon in many cases, but not entirely. Starship will have its values for the Moon as well.

For Starship launched from the Sea locations in particular, I think the Tankers will be very important. You could indeed get Methane and Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Argon to bring to Orbit, as well as water, I suppose.

Its surface area vs. mass and volume, suitable for punching though the Earth's Troposphere.

I do like the idea of orbital depots that bring various propellants around in the Earth/Moon sub-system. It is possible that the Moon will be a source of Oxygen as well as hardware.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-03 10:50:19)

Void · 2022-04-04 11:27:11

Climate Greenhouse/Change/Crisis! Oh My!

Of course, this is definitely a thing to look into: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/s … ocean.html

But it is also on my mind that waste heat could be used to produce wealth, and also to treat "Climate Greenhouse/Change/Crisis! Oh My!".

And perhaps it might fit into propellant tankers to orbit, perhaps Starship tankers included.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=li … M%3DHDRSC3

Here is the thing, I think. There are two treatment methods to consider, perhaps others as well.
1) Solve forever. We seem to be having enough trouble not making things worse, if you believe the True/Fake news about climate blah blah blah.
2) We may have an option to borrow on perhaps a 10,000 year loan and get by until technology "Grows Up" more.

There are two reasons to care.
1) You are governing agencies, and want to keep the public in a state of concern.
2) You want to solve for any actual problem.

* Governing is not the same as Government. We hope for a legal government for matters that require it. We also have posers who are constantly trying to govern, even though they are not legal to the task. Sometimes, it does not hurt to let them do it. Sometimes, you just have to tolerate it, and sometimes, something has to be done about it.

I have been around long enough to remember that there is always a public panic issue being promoted. And that is too bad, if in fact there is a reason to be concerned about something. And I have noted that quite a few of the entities that you might expect to act to fix the problem because they are alarming about it, oppose solutions. The suspicion is that as someone who knows this site has sort of said, "They want political power, not alternative energy".

So, such people and entities have to be identified, and buffered against if possible.

------

Anyway, I am sure that there are many who might like to take out a 10,000 year loan.

Here I am talking about the nutrients in the deep ocean. I made up the number 10,000 years.

OK, it's not that much, but is likely plenty: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ … 0a%20cycle.

I will simplify the rest of this. So, Starships might launch from platforms off from the coast, 20 km or miles? Don't care.

If you have an energy source, you generate propellants to lift to orbit, and in the process you dump waste heat into lower down ocean water with nutrients in it. That then floats up and allows a photosynthesis enhancement.

A part of this can be a big water tank that you store hot water in. The heat that leaks helps the process, but also you can do something like OTEC, and also generate electricity and distilled water. Nuclear might be of interest but you don't want to couple the potential of chemical explosions with that, so they need separation. Also a hot water tank is most suitable for intermittent energy sources, such as solar, wind, and wave.

Making fertilizer generates CO2 and consumes petroleum products, at least at this time. So, the oceans fertility is the equivalent of a big tank of energy.

Also, the cold water is energy.

-----

Now, about heating up the oceans. Actually, the waste heat will do less harm than greenhouse gasses, if you believe in the greenhouse effect. Actually this would keep polar ice cooler, as greenhouse warming is most pronounced at the poles, I believe.

So, there you go.

And lets go to the Moon while we are at it and get Oxygen, and hardware, so that those will be provided from the sun and Moon environments instead of the Earth environment.

See, I am an environmentalist. I also have a brain.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-04 11:57:24)

Calliban · 2022-04-04 14:21:11

The lunar crust and mantle have no tectonics and are essentially frozen. Radioactive decay of potassium-40 on the moon generates about 50 tonnes of Ar-40 each year, only 3 tonnes of which are outgassed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 0177901789

Over a time frame of megayears, this gas will have accumulated in porosities within the crust and upper mantle. A microbar atmosphere could be created by releasing this gas through drilling.

We would need to release about 2 billion tonnes of it to create a 1microbar atmosphere.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-04 14:24:36)

Void · 2022-04-04 15:24:16

Calliban,

I recall you and Terraformer discussing similar things previously.

It seems like a thing to work into over time perhaps. I also expect that the Argon could be supplemented by Oxygen produced industrially.

I don't know if it will prove worthwhile, but I am interested in moving Moon>(Oxygen)>Orbital Earth, Earth>(Methane)>Moon.

I think that perhaps various efficient methods could be devised. Actually I might rattle off several potential things, so this will not be precision work.

Going more towards the "Tried and True", I would recall that kbd512 has mentioned Argon electric propulsion. Argon could come from both the Moon and the Earth.

I also have in mind a Aero skip shield, being of a relatively thin sheet of Stainless Steel, (Perhaps). It would fill several purposes. It would be the main reflector of a solar concentrator, but also a sunshield for tanks of cryogenic propellants. And ideally it could be used to skip off of the upper atmosphere. Where a heat shield normally only sheds heat from its windward side, here I intend that it would shed heat from its leeward side.

So, then the idea would be to put a load such as a propulsion device and propellant tanks in it's wake, push that from the Moon to an intercept of the Earth's atmosphere, and then skip-aerobrake into LEO. And so then presumably to bring propellants, perhaps Oxygen to LEO from the Moon.

While this perhaps could involve electric propulsion of the ion type, I have some potential alternatives.

Of course water as a boiled propellant has been considered, and if you bring Hydrogen up from the Earth, and Oxygen from the Moon you would have water for steam. The device I already described would be a primary element for a solar concentrator, so then you can get that picture.

But I also like to consider what can be done to use Oxygen only as a propellant? Of course the reasons being that Oxygen will not contribute to the Kessler Syndrome, and it can be had from worlds like the Moon in abundance.

A long time ago, I considered a liquid Oxygen mass driver. Oxygen is paramagnetic, so then you know why I considered that. But likely as the Oxygen would vent it would cake up with Oxygen ice. And the viscosity might drag on the tube, should you not be able to confine the stream of liquid from contacting the walls of the propulsion solenoid tubes.

I more recently considered Oxygen cube propulsion. Those cubes would vaporize quickly at locations closer than the asteroid belt, I think.
But you would be dealing with a solid, which would be hard.

We could hope to superheat Oxygen, and spew it out like water steam, but of course there are very limited types of materials that would not deteriorate under those conditions. Perhaps ceramics of some kind. I bring back the notion that this thing is going to actually be a Solar Concentrator.

I do recall that the Raptor is going to have an Oxidizer side pre-burner. I seem to recall that the Soviets pioneered in that direction a long time ago, and the Americans then did the fuel side pre-burner.

But there are some very high temperature solar cells, that could be employed to generate electricity from the solar concentrator, which much of the ship is composed of.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/high-tempe … lar-cells/

This one we have looked at before: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-high-temp … solar.html
Quote:

New high-temperature device captures a broader solar wavelength spectrum, improves solar cell efficiency

Quote:

In experiments, the new absorbers were shown to operate at a temperature of 800 degrees Celsius and to absorb light of wavelengths ranging from 300 to 1750 nanometers, that is, from ultraviolet (UV) to near-infrared wavelengths.

So, then the concentrator focused on these to make a electric source. The two possible devices to expel Oxygen for propulsion.

1) European air breathing ion thruster: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Sp … c_thruster

I have a feeling that it will have trouble handling pure Oxygen gas.

2) Laser impulse drive.

Revised:
Historically this has been looked at: https://science.howstuffworks.com/light … 0pollution.

***Note: In the case, the laser(s) would be on board the ship.

But I have in mind a capacitive surface where the Oxygen atoms would stick to after being applied, and then of course a laser flash to the surface to expel the Oxygen at high speed.

Again you have to have something that is going to tolerate high temperature Oxygen.

So you would have a means to flow Oxygen to that surface. I am tempted to think that you could remove Electrons from the Oxygen first, and flow it onto a capacitively charged surface and then flash it with a laser pulse.

Anyway, I guess this is wishing as usual, but for the Moon and other Oxygen sources this might not be so bad.

What do you think?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-04 15:59:30)

Void · 2022-04-08 11:59:19

I guess I will put some references here for support of my next posted materials here.

From Isaac Arthur: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Is … M%3DHDRSC3

Some of what is included is interesting and valuable.
The idea of a seed is not easy to accept as like that of a plant, but the concept is actually correct. For a long time, the seed/nurture method, will be much bulkier I feel.

Again, I am aligned with him to explore what we could do with the Moon. But that path in my mind does not exist with the notion of diverting away from Mars. I feel that most of the hardware developed that could be used for the Moon, will also be likely to help with Mars.

What matters for the Moon, is "What are the true limits, not the presumed and possibly outdated limits?".

This is also interesting: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/earth-and- … tmospheres
Quote:

Oct 14, 2020
Earth and Moon Once Shared a Magnetic Shield, Protecting Their Atmospheres
Four-and-a-half billion years ago, Earth’s surface was a menacing, hot mess. Long before the emergence of life, temperatures were scorching, and the air was toxic. Plus, as a mere toddler, the Sun bombarded our planet with violent outbursts of radiation called flares and coronal mass ejections. Streams of charged particles called the solar wind threatened our atmosphere. Our planet was, in short, uninhabitable.

As is typical, the formation story of the Moon is quite simple, a crash/splash story, and it could be true, but I allow for a more complex formation history. For instance, I allow the possibility that their could have been an original accreted moon which would likely be wetter and smaller, and would have absorbed much of the crash and splash. This would be been something like how most moons of the outer planets would have formed. But it is not at all necessary to be right about that.

I do allow for a later bombardment(s), contribution. I would not need to believe that the Moon only formed from one event. What if their were two major impacts like Theia? Three? But of course random impacts would erode the Moon more than Earth, so there is that.

I have mentioned a magnetic field for the Moon previously. This is sort of based on the notion for Mars.

In post #144, Calliban has offered this:

The lunar crust and mantle have no tectonics and are essentially frozen. Radioactive decay of potassium-40 on the moon generates about 50 tonnes of Ar-40 each year, only 3 tonnes of which are outgassed.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 0177901789
Over a time frame of megayears, this gas will have accumulated in porosities within the crust and upper mantle. A microbar atmosphere could be created by releasing this gas through drilling.
We would need to release about 2 billion tonnes of it to create a 1microbar atmosphere.

The thin gasses would give some protection from small impactors.

I would like to expand on it.

I would like to consider a Magnetic Net. Unlike that one so far contemplated for Mars, I would like it to be very complex, and to support several uses. First of all we might want it to "Catch" molecules from the sun into the field, so it would have leaks on the sun facing side, and be less leaky on the leeward side from the solar wind. A thin retained atmosphere of Argon might assist in the capture. In that case it would be chemically non-reactive. Hydrogen and Helium would be the two major components, with very small amounts of other things. You might be thinking Helium 3, but of course just Helium could be exported to Earth/Venus, perhaps.

A complex magnetic field, in part could be composed of levitation methods for surface or subsurface mounted spin gravity devices. I prefer devices where you can walk/climb into an out of them without start/stopping them.

For lifting off from the Moon, we can consider the futuristic notions of Mass Drivers and Tethers.

I would then add some of the obvious, and then also adapt some one or more things as we go along.

We have chemical launch systems of course. And once you have something in a minimum orbit of the Moon, the complex magnetic field protecting it might be used to alter the orbits of those devices. If the craft has a magnetic field itself, then ground stations could push and pull orbital loads.

In my just previous post, I mentioned this:

Historically this has been looked at: https://science.howstuffworks.com/light … 0pollution
***Note: In the case, the laser(s) would be on board the ship.
But I have in mind a capacitive surface where the Oxygen atoms would stick to after being applied, and then of course a laser flash to the surface to expel the Oxygen at high speed.
Again you have to have something that is going to tolerate high temperature Oxygen.
So you would have a means to flow Oxygen to that surface. I am tempted to think that you could remove Electrons from the Oxygen first, and flow it onto a capacitively charged surface and then flash it with a laser pulse.
Anyway, I guess this is wishing as usual, but for the Moon and other Oxygen sources this might not be so bad.

Picture Quote: https://media.hswstatic.com/eyJidWNrZXQ … IwMH19fQ==

If you generate Oxygen on the Moon, and fire it from an engine like the above picture, then you might also build Oxygen into the Lunar atmosphere. The Oxygen Polution from the engines would tend to accumulate as an atmosphere. There will likely be no clouds, unless you stimulated dust storms. That issue can be handled as well. You can have lasers on board, the ship, but it would also be very sensible to have lasers on the Lunar surface to give power to this type of drive. As I have said, there should be no clouds, and also, some of the flight path would be very proximate to the Lunar surface. In fact perhaps you could lift off from the Lunar surface with this. Various mixtures of propulsion methods could be used.

I did mention the possibility of dust storms. Well, an atmosphere of that magnitude might eventually be created. But some craters might collect the dust, and you might process the dust. That would be a choice to make. But if you have an atmosphere that dense then you can aerobrake into the Moons gravity well. An atmosphere thick enough to breath? Well, not out of the question. Depends on if you want to expend the effort.

A very simple diagram of a proposed synthetic gravity machine for the Moon:

The base of "B" can simply be lubricated with grease, as the speed would be lower. The section "A" would be magnetically supported.

Below "B" would be a passage to tunnels which would also be pressurized. The spinning device would be kept in a cavern with a "Greater Partial Vacuum" in it.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-08 13:13:28)

Calliban · 2022-04-08 16:11:50

Rocket exhaust will inevitably result in atmosphere accumulation. Regular rocket traffic would lead to an accumulation of CO2. It would take a long time to build up 1 billion tonnes though. That is about 1 cubic kilometre of frozen or liquid gases.

The existing lunar atmosphere has mass of about 30 tonnes and is dominated by argon and neon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

These components presumably have their origin in lunar outgassing. Ion sputtering continuously removes these gases from the lunar atmosphere. If a magnetic field is provided and ion sputtering ceases, then natural outgassing will allow the gases to accumulate. However, building up a 1 microbar atmosphere may require centuries.

The argon appears to be leaking from specific points on the surface.
https://telanganatoday.com/distribution … 40-on-moon

Oxygen is the most abundant gas in the lunar regolith. But releasing it will be energetically expensive. Metal production on the moon will inevitably release some O2. Greenhouses and airlocks will also leak a certain quantity.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-08 17:37:54)

Void · 2022-04-08 20:36:14

Thank You Calliban. You often have useful things to offer.

It is hard to judge future options by historical achievements I think, in this coming era.

Where the notion of building an atmosphere for the Moon should seem crazy, we may now soon have an enormous labor pool of robots, and telepresence machines on the Moon. Where the Moon has vast amounts of materials, and energy, the ability to manipulate objects might be vastly amplified.

I do think that a 1/3 bar atmosphere is still rather very much out there, even so, in 1000 years, who knows. And that perhaps only not by intention, but simply as you suggested a byproduct of activities.

But then pulling back in ambitions, an atmosphere thick enough to aero burn into. Not really needed, but maybe useful?

Or something less. If you had a magnetic net, to catch the solar wind, and a thin mix of Oxygen as a byproduct of propulsion. Still the Argon going into it, Helium to be captured as a product. Hydrogen from the solar wind to bond to the Oxygen in the atmosphere. Rather Protons to impact Oxygen molecules. If you had laser drive ships, the byproduct of that could be water, as it would be Oxygen and Hydrogen included into the super heated Oxygen expelled by the Laser drive.

Then you would have dug a network of tunnels so deep and extensive that the air pressure at the bottoms might be 1/3 bar, if you did not partition them with airlocks.

And all of the materials from those tunnels producing Oxygen, and hardware. Some of that shipped to other worlds, in particular those downstream of the solar wind.

Not a bad binary world at all, wouldn't you say?

Indeed Earth & Luna the Binary gem world of our solar system.

Why not?

Optimus: https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Tesl … &FORM=EWRE

I think it is fair to say that Elon and Tesla have only planted a seed. I am sure that there will be a lot of "Elon Time" involved, but it is very exciting.

Nay Sayers are also putting down the "Boring Company", but it is only just out of the crib. What do they expect. They are spoiled brats, never do goods in my opinion.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-08 20:46:20)

Void · 2022-04-09 11:19:41

This caught my eye today: https://phys.org/news/2022-04-differenc … ossal.html
Quote:

Differences between the Moon's near and far sides linked to colossal ancient impact

So, there is much to learn about the Moon, and I am thinking it may be true that there will be special ore bodies to find.
Finding evidence of the history of the Moon will also make it surer that we better understand the history of the solar system.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-04-09 11:22:33)

Calliban · 2022-04-10 02:55:32

A 1/3 bar atmosphere on the moon would require about 20 metric tonnes of oxygen per square metre of surface. It would take an enormous amount of energy and work to build. One could argue that with enough robotic slaves and enough time, we could accomplish anything. But even a 1 microbar atmosphere is a big job.

In my opinion, a thick atmosphere would spoil a lot of the advantages that the moon offers. A boundless source of bulk materials in a low g, vacuum environment. That makes it an ideal source of materials for industries in high Earth orbit. But we need to be able to use mass drivers for it to be useful in this way. A dense atmosphere would make that impossible. A 1 microbar atmosphere would complicate the use of mass drivers. But it would protect surface equipment from impacts from interplanetary dust and would provide some protection against space radiation. Such an atmosphere would be too diffuse to result in any dust suspension. It would probably be invisible. Another minor side benefit: if rocket exhaust leads to the creation of a significant ionosphere on the moon, exploration teams can stay in touch with the base using long wave radio.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-10 04:47:34)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2022-03-28 18:50:42

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#127 2022-03-29 06:06:18

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#128 2022-03-29 08:41:17

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#129 2022-03-29 10:08:02

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#130 2022-03-29 12:00:39

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#131 2022-03-30 09:32:45

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#132 2022-03-30 10:32:52

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#133 2022-04-01 19:20:00

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#134 2022-04-02 10:34:16

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#135 2022-04-02 15:04:58

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#136 2022-04-02 15:26:43

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#137 2022-04-02 16:55:52

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#138 2022-04-02 19:30:24

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#139 2022-04-02 20:01:36

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#140 2022-04-03 09:07:33

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#141 2022-04-03 10:06:34

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#142 2022-04-03 10:43:35

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#143 2022-04-04 11:27:11

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#144 2022-04-04 14:21:11

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#145 2022-04-04 15:24:16

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#146 2022-04-08 11:59:19

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#147 2022-04-08 16:11:50

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#148 2022-04-08 20:36:14

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#149 2022-04-09 11:19:41

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#150 2022-04-10 02:55:32

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Board footer