Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Calliban · 2022-11-17 05:05:11

Given its orbit, Phobos is far more likely composed of ejection fragments from the Martian surface. It could provide future spacecraft with a source of reaction mass for mass driver engines. A space station constructed in Mars orbit could also use Phobos material as radiation shielding. Even if Phobos is composed of trash rocks, there are uses for bulk material without the need for processing it. For shielding and reaction mass, the composition is almost irrelevant. We would fill polymer bags with whatever Phobos happens to be made of. It provides a mass that we can either fling out of an impulse engine or put between us and a source of radiation, like cosmic rays. For the original Island One Bernal sphere concept, about 95% of the total mass of the station would have been shielding. A lot of the materials needed internally for soil and building blocks, were silica and basic metal oxides. If we could design a simple mining technique that scoops up regolith and small rocks and packages the material into small polymer bags, this is what would be needed to provide the basic elements for radiation shields or mass driver impulse propellant.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-11-17 05:08:19)

Void · 2022-11-17 09:01:26

Well, it is interesting, for sure. I guess there is no particular reason to be sure of either the origins or the true nature of the two moons.

I am sort of inclined to think that they are composites. Composed of materials from multiple events and perhaps modified also over time.

So, the radar seems to suggest that they are not of a uniform nature. Not all fine dust. The surface materials observed may contain Carbon:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/mars … 20diameter. Quote:

The moons appear to be made of carbon-rich rock mixed with ice and may be captured asteroids. This color-enhanced view of Deimos, the smaller of the two moons of Mars, was taken by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Deimos is about 7.5 miles in diameter.

The ice part, I am not so trusting about.

I guess I can buy into the notion that a major portion(s) may be from a collision(s) with Mars. But in part, that could have been an early, wet Mars, so perhaps hydrated minerals included. The solar wind seems to get absorbed into Phobos, so that is protons>Hydrogen. Does any of it stick around? I don't know.

It could be that the appearance as asteroids, is from dust from the asteroid belt, and smaller impactors from the asteroid belt. So, the surface material may be different than the source for most of the interior rock.

That seems to be the case for the asteroid Vesta: https://www.zmescience.com/space/vesta- … rotoplanet. Quote:

A A Vesta is “peppered” with carbon materials which researchers believe were left behind by asteroids gently striking its surface. Vesta is an asteroid itself – but one so large that some astronauts were actually thinking about declaring it a planet, or at least a protoplanet.

We would not think of a large amount of dust coming from the asteroid belt now, but what about an earlier era?

This article is a relatively recent speculation: https://phys.org/news/2022-11-phobos-su … uring.html
Some very interesting wording in it about canyons, tides. Quote:

The new study proposes that these grooves are surface expressions of underlying canyons hidden inside Phobos, which are early signs that the moon is falling apart due to increasing tidal forces from Mars.

When I was younger, I read about "Chimney Caves". This would be a jumble of large rocks piled together. The spaces between the rocks would be caves. I cannot find that expression on the internet.

And so now that I said, that I do find something: http://vermontcavers.org/vermont-caves/ … icos-cave/
Images: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ch … HoverTitle

So, if the interior of a small world is of fractures/canyons in the major sized stones, then how will smaller particles/stones behave in the interior gravitational field?

We know that the average in the center of Phobos will be a relatively unstable 0 g. But will variable gravitation from orbiting Mars and passing though the gravitation of Mascon's in the bulk of Mars, tidal forces might budge these smaller objects. What will they flow towards and very slightly anchor to with gravitation variations? Will some interior process cement them to larger rocks?

So, may there be large "Chimney Caves" inside Phobos?

So, now about the porosity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon) Quote:

30% ± 5%
According to 2 sources

Quote;

Phobos's density is too low to be solid rock, and it is known to have significant porosity.[31][32][33] These results led to the suggestion that Phobos might contain a substantial reservoir of ice. Spectral observations indicate that the surface regolith layer lacks hydration,[34][35] but ice below the regolith is not ruled out.[36][37]

So, we may really want to know if there are sizable caves inside Phobos, filled with ice or not, still a major feature that could be a useful asset.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-17 09:32:22)

Void · 2022-11-17 14:02:39

Going on a bit more with Phobos, I am starting to suppose it might be like a rattle, shaken by Mascon's on Mars, and also Sun tides. If it is very chunky, with some very large chunks, there may be chimney caves, variously filled with smaller objects or just some empty space as well. The question is, under certain conditions, can there be large voids near or even at the center of the moon?

We know that the gravitation is ~(Aproximately null), at the center of mass. That may or may not be at the center of the object as the center might be estimated by the outside surface of the moon.

So, this might be a little similar to this, from post #597:

The inner shell which bounds the inner white area, would not have to fight too hard to keep the blue water from penetrating it and there would not be much convective urge to get the air in the white center to bubble out.

But for Phobos, we might suppose that what might be fluid may be small dirt and rock particles.

So, if Phobos is made of several major slabs, with lesser sized materials between the slabs, each slab may compete to attract the fluid of smaller sized materials, a dry fluid. Mascon's of Mars and sun tides may help move some of them around. My own feeling is that this "Fluid" may circularize the orbits. Also, the south hemisphere of Mars being higher than the north hemisphere, I think it may help to push the moons to an equatorial orbit. So, a bit like a gutter ball in bowling.

I am thinking about the gravitational center of Phobos. I think it would be like L1 or maybe L2, but not L4 or L5. If you get off center on L1 or L2, I think an object will "Fall" away from that center. If nothing has it pinned down, it should "Fall" towards the largest slab or collection of mass nearest to it, sort of like.

While I might be eager for Phobos to be at least in part a captured asteroid, it would also be scientifically valuable if it were to contain slabs of the early crust of Mars. As I have said, it could also be a composite, so perhaps all of the above.

There is an electron cloud in the leeward of the moon, as relative to the position of the sun sent solar wind. So, there may be electrical discharges passing through the moon. The voids in the interior may also have a very thin atmosphere of gas molecules. We know that the solar wind passes into the moon, somehow, so there may be Hydrogen.

We also know that some of the atmosphere stiped off from Mars, may be pushed onto or even into the moon. That would have included CO2, CO, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Argon. So, those could be in the interior atmosphere of Phobos.

Where the average temperature of Phobos may be considered too warm for water ice, consider the polar areas. Even with direct sunlight the surface will not get full light, but only show at an angle to the sunlight. These might be cold enough for ice.

I have considered that with the electrical discharges, and with the proper chemicals, then it could be that heavy hydrocarbons might have evolved inside of that moon. Things like cold Tar/Tholen's, might not evaporate out.

Quote:

SCIENCE & NATURE › SPACE
8 Interesting Facts About Phobos
Lizzie Robinson
5 Minutes Read
Published: September 30, 2021

https://www.thefactsite.com/phobo-facts/
Quote:

The composition of Phobos isn’t what you might think…
It’s common to think that moons are just giant rocks floating around in space or around the planets.
However, the composition of Phobos is more interesting than that.
A large part of both Mars’ moons is indeed carbon-rich rock, but that isn’t all.
Scientists believe that both Phobos and Deimos are made up of rock and ice.
More recent studies into Phobos indicate that the outer surface is covered with a layer of dust approximately one meter thick.

So, it looks very likely that Carbon and Oxygen are available. So, then the fuel CO, and also Oxygen a potential. But if also Ice, or Hydrogen from the internal atmosphere, then the potential fuel Methane, Hydrogen, and then also Oxygen. So, either way the importance is obvious.

----

I came across this today: https://phys.org/news/2022-11-ancient-g … -rich.html
Quote:

Home
Astronomy & Space
Planetary Sciences
NOVEMBER 17, 2022 REPORT
Ancient global ocean on Mars may have come from carbon-rich chondrite meteorites from the outer solar system
by Bob Yirka , Phys.org
Prior research has shown that such meteorites are 10% water. That allowed them to calculate how much water was likely delivered to the planet—it was enough to cover the entire surface to a depth of 300 meters. This finding suggests that water-rich asteroids were the main source of water filling Mars' oceans. It also suggests that most of the water on other bodies in the solar system likely came from the outer solar system via meteorites as well.

So, if you did get slabs of Martian crust into Phobos or maybe Deimos, then I have to believe that the science community wants a look at that. So, here is an opportunity to "Exploit" their interest by facilitating their desires, and also furthering science, and then also piggybacking other interests into the effort.

Early on, a Starship could help to deliver some massive instrumentation to have a better look at the interior of Phobos and perhaps Deimos.

-----

And at the same time check for life on Mars, in a relatively easy manner.

A lander with canisters of H2, CH4, and CO, to feed microbes.

Try this:

We are looking for microbes that might consume those gasses. You might even include some Oxygen, as somehow Oxygen also appears from time to time I have read.

Parts of Mars may be kind enough for organisms that live in Antarctica: https://newatlas.com/biology/air-eating … ica-artic/ Quote:

Bacteria that "eat" only air found in cold deserts around the world
By Michael Irving
August 19, 2020

I don't know if the test dome needs to let in spectrums of light or not. It may also elevate temperature, so that may be a concern.

Microbes supplied with Hydrogen and perhaps Methane automatically get water and energy.

A Starship going to Phobos would not require a heat shield or landing legs, provided it could use Ballistic Capture.

A probe to land on Mars could be attached to the Starship's exterior and might be kept relatively clean of Earth microbes. It would of course need its own heat shield, and landing method.

I don't think it is true that you have to drill down to the water table to find microbes. They should be just a little bit down, out of the UV glare, but still close enough to warm to at least -20 degC, which is where Antarctic microbes begin to motabolize.

So, there you go, an early mission that could survey Phobos, and Mars and maybe Deimos, and also may drop some probes down to Mars.

A way to find out if there might be microbes of the type mentioned.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-17 15:10:18)

Void · 2022-11-17 20:13:27

OK, this is what I am up to now:

The above may or may not be true of course. The point is to find out what is real.

The idea of a refilling source(s) in the orbits of Mars, seems important to me.

If Metha Lox is not possible from the moons, then perhaps CO and O2.

Done.

There is the option to send stuff to Mars orbits using electric rockets and plasma bubbles.

There is also the option to send stuff by way of Ballistic Capture. Ballistic Capture may or may not include braking in the atmosphere.
Ballistic Capture does not have the same launch restrictions as does the Hohmann transfer method. But it does take more time, but if you are sending stuff to Martian orbit, then you may not care.

A local Starship or Terran-R to bring stuff down to the surface, will have a less stressful atmospheric entry, and might be refilled in orbit, if Hydro Lox is available from the moons of Mars.

And of course, using this "Style/Method", allows you to work around dust storms. This method could free up Starships to some extend as they might not even have to transit from the Earth to Mars. If you had a "Barge" of "Stuff", then it could be given a boost up to a high Earth orbit and might then have its own small propulsion system.

So, the main gain is a Starship in transit from Mars with stuff, is put out of use for about 2 years, and is also sort of decaying during that time, and without corrective maintenance on it during the transit.

So, this makes sense to me. Around Mars, to some extent CO & O2 may be useful to do some of the inertia changes needed.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-17 20:39:08)

Void · 2022-11-18 12:22:06

A little segway to Anton Petrov. This is about 2 years old. I guess it's relation to terraforming is that it will help to be more accurate about planetary history, to understand how planets are and why.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mo … &FORM=VIRE

I guess one way to remake Venus would be to create a loss of atmosphere that this theory suggests results in a greater habitability of a planet. My notion is to extract atmosphere to orbital habitats. But then again, it might be that we want a hot house Venus, and habitats in the clouds and in orbits.

I will note that if collision is the major reason why Venus is as it is, it is a slap in the face of the "Greens", as the notion of a greenhouse effect originated with scientists decades ago in the previous century, and these silly people have been struggling to produce a religion to be able to meddle in human affairs, and of course for them to gain power and wealth.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 12:36:39)

Void · 2022-11-18 12:39:21

The previous post has caused my thinking to return to Venus. I had previously tried to consider towers that could allow access to surface materials. Things did not look too bad, until I had a look at the winds.

So, now, I am considering a new notion that combines several previous attempts, and does include the thinking of others of course, and some of my own.

Things borrowed from others. Floating cities. Russians, I believe. Cables reaching to the surface to snag regolith, members here mentioned it a long time ago.

Well, now, I am thinking island, maybe up to a full ring eventually, in the clouds. "Air Anchors" dropping a distance downward. Those to have to options of multiple floats and platforms on them. Probably not reaching all the way to the ground.

So, you would have airports included in the floating "Ring". Solar Power, and windmills. The Air Anchors would also reduce the spin of the ring, and so, create a differential speed between the winds and the and the rotation of the ring.

So rather than a compressive tower, also using floats, then a tensile tether structure with floats and platforms.

OK, I previously believed that water vapor was higher at the bottoms of the cloud deck on Venus. That is apparently not true.
But it does not matter. At some point the Hydrogen could be extracted from the Sulfuric Acid to the point that there might not be much of it left. And that possible terraform trick would hopefully make the atmosphere more friendly to humans and their machines.

Then as much water a possible could be stored in the atmospheric ring, and some then sent, if possible, to orbit. If desperate, then Hydrogen could be released at a high elevation in hopes that it would just float away.

This is fairly good: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration … 20100%20km. Image Quote: https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/ima … rticle.jpg

Methods to generate power could be various. It might also be possible to drop cold fluids down the tether system to the platforms to cool them and to also generate power with turbines.

To then access the surface regolith, then, I suggest again gliders that would be weighted down with cold fluids and would land on the surface and load up on ores. When most of the cold fluids had boiled off, then the plane being lighter, would use propellers to fly up with a load of ore to the platforms on tethers.

Some sort of electrical power systems needed on the surface then.

A ring, would have runways on platforms lower down, allowing ships from orbit to glide in thick atmosphere. The ships then perhaps then lifted up to the ring, to then take off like a Starship.

The gravity being ~90% that of Earth and the atmospheric cushion for gliding and floating being thicker, then perhaps Venus is not too bad for this.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 13:23:32)

Void · 2022-11-18 13:58:59

I have recently talked about Phobos and Venus. I am probably not done with Venus, but it has to be considered likely that Mars/Phobos/Deimos is the low hanging fruit, most likely to succeed.

Noone on this board is in my crosshairs on this but I do note that it seems to occur quite commonly that ideas get fossilized, and the ability to add to or rethink a problem encounters resistance from people living in the past, or with their foundations in the words of people in the past.

Carl Sagan was a great person, for instance, but the story of a runaway greenhouse effect on Venus may be false. If he were alive, I think he would entertain several possibilities. But in this time other people just seem to want to play a binary ape game, picking a side and fighting for it when the real need is to seek to understand reality. That requires observing it, in addition to the books of religion behaviors. Religion learning is all in the past. Active science is in the now.

Back to Mars, I still hold that a Mars surface settlement should likely come before human activity on the moons of Mars.

Transfers of humans from Earth to Mars, either need the Hohmann transfer, Mars direct method, or a very large castle type spaceship with transfer vehicles. But "Stuff", does not require it.

A Starship tied up in an Earth>Mars>Earth transit takes 26 months more or less. That ship could have done 2 or more boosts of a barge to Mars each month. So that would be at least 52 boosts in the time period that it would take to send a freighter from Earth>Mars>Earth.

To be sure, the penalty upon the barge arriving to Mars orbit is that you then need a on-site transfer vehicle, probably a Starship or a Terran-R or something else.

But with some propulsion methods for the barge, you may spiral to Mars, and with ballistic capture, you may get pulled into the gravity field of Mars. In these cases, as well, probably many more launch windows can exist.

In the case where you eventually have a base associated with a moon of Mars, you have a location where propellants for landing might be procured. This would then mean that a Ship would fill to get off of the surface of Mars, but would not need landing propellants on board, but could get them in orbit.

If you did have a base on one of these moons, and it was not safe to land on Mars, it is possible that a passenger ship could abort to orbit by using aerobraking and propellants, then to be taken into such an orbital base. This could be a concern during global dust storms.

So, that all seems sensible to me.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 14:14:52)

Void · 2022-11-18 18:17:58

Another aspect of having a relatively constant trickle of materials arrive vs. having 1000 ships arrive, is that your propellant factories can run 24/7 year around, if you have the inputs needed.

For instance, if you are going to launch 1000 Starships to Mars every 26 months from Earth, then you have to have all the propellants needed in stock in orbit. You of course then need all the facilities to hold those propellants.

In order to send stuff to Mars, it might be better to seek other options. There can be several to be considered.

One would be to have a Starship push a Barge to a high orbit. Then to employ other means of propulsion for the barge.

Other means could be Nuclear Electric, Solar Electric, Nuclear Plasma Bubble, and Solar Plasma Bubble. But the barge might also have chemical propulsion. These options in many cases will reduce the amount of mass of propellants that have to be lifted by Starships. I also am betting that a Starship might be able to do such a boost 4 times a month, if the launch windows exist.

Similarly, the receptions to Mars would be spread more around the years, not a whole bunch every 26 months.

Otherwise, then I wonder what it would be like to try to refill 1000 Starships on Mars at almost the same time every 26 months. Seems like a weird notion to me. You would need so much storage space for the propellants. Or do I have a mind impediment about this?

Starships specialized for Earth operations, and then some specialized for Mars operations seems sensible to me, at least for freight (Stuff).

If you feel like I need corrections on this, please swing away at me.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 18:31:18)

Void · 2022-11-18 18:35:02

And per the just previous post, the nuclear reactors, (Of the Barges), if any could be deployed to Phobos for instance, and some of the solar panels could be deployed to the Mars surface base. Yes, I know, the nuclear would be better on the surface, but if they are "Hot", then it will be easier and safer to put them into shielded holds attached to Phobos. Landing them near the base of city, would be really asking for a bad moment.

Done

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 18:35:42)

Void · 2022-11-18 18:37:32

Just now it actually makes sense to think about both Mars/Phobos/Deimos and Venus, as it can become more apparent which is the better one and when. I am really upgrading Venus at this point, but I think it needs more technological advancement to get to its payoff point, than does Mars/Phobos/Deimos.

So, Venus, a Megga Structure in the sky?

Well, I am thinking big. A ring in the sky, kind of like a suspension bridge, floating in the sky, perhaps passing all the way around the planet.
I am thinking it might have multiple floors, and transparent walls. Perhaps all the Hydrogen taken from the Sulfuric Acid Clouds and added to Oxygen to produce water.

Maybe it does not have to go down to 10 bars. Perhaps a maximum depth of the structure would be determined by what works best for landing ships like Starships. If they landed down say at the 3 or 5 bar level, perhaps a lift could then bring them up to say the .33 bar level.

So, then this would have lots of solar and also wind power.

So, then how to get power to the ground and how to run robots to extract regolith.

A sort of dome on the surface might be able to hold a puddle of cool air, provided that the refrigeration was possible.

And then of course I am interested in aircraft both planes and lighter than aircraft to bring the raw or processed materials from the mining operations to the ring city.

Converting H2SO4 to Sulfur Oxides and extracting the Hydrogen to the ring city or to orbital space, would do a lot to reduce the acid nature of the environment, I think.

There could certainly be habitats and such in orbit, but I am after all beginning to think that a floating mega structure in the atmosphere may be the place to put most of the effort. I was not in favor of it before, but if mining could happen, and large construction in the atmosphere, and if the Sulfuric Acid could be treated, it begins to make sense to me.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-18 19:03:24)

Void · 2022-11-19 10:02:31

A small piece of recent posting, domes on the surface of Venus may be worth a further look.

Such Domes might be protective of robots and other equipment, probably for mining.

The environment within might be cooled to some degree, if sufficient energy existed. A probable fill for them could be Nitrogen. The domes might be heavily insulated, and perhaps also protected from outside corrosion by some method.

The environment would be totally unsuitable for biological life, unless heavy electro-mechanical assistance were used, so not a place for people.

So, cooling would only be enough to facilitate things like robots that could be built also to tolerate more heat.

So, if the above were done, then teleoperation might also be employed. So, how much harder would this be than to work in the Earth's oceans with robotics, or on the Moon with robotics?

Solar of course is not likely for the surface of Venus as a source of power. Nuclear Fission may be. Wind is a notion:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … e_of_Venus
Quote:

.. Other power systems have been proposed for the Venus surface. Wind power systems have attracted some interest [32][33][34]. One proposed wind-powered lander is shown in Fig. 4. The surface winds of Venus were measured on four of the Soviet Venera missions, showing speeds ranging from 0.3 m/s (Venera 14) to a 1.3 m/s (maximum measured on Venera 10) [35]. ...

Also....
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/201 … 010972.pdf
Some of these images may apply: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=wi … HoverTitle

So, maybe these mining domes could have some wind power, maybe nuclear fission.

It could also be that microwave from floating cities or from orbit could give some power to the domes.

And some work has been done on high temperature electronics: https://science.nasa.gov/technology/tec … nd%20above. Quote:

Standard electronics used commercially and for planetary exploration are based on silicon semiconductors, which do not operate at Venus temperatures. A team at NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) has been working to develop hightemperature electronics based on silicon carbide (SiC) semiconductors that can operate at Venus temperatures and above.

So, this idea may not be out of the question someday.

Another notion that might have merit would be to bring liquid Nitrogen down from a floating city, as a coolant. Actually, perhaps Liquid CO2 or Dry Ice. Filling a lighter than aircraft with dry ice, which would weight it down, passing the material into a dome until the lighter than aircraft only has gas Nitrogen in it, so that it can float back up.

So, the dome would need heavy insulation, and the ground beneath the dome would radiate heat, quite a lot of it, at least at first.

So, it might be possible to mine Venus. I am not saying it would be easy though.

Probably makes the habitation of the clouds and orbits or Venus more likely.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 10:22:53)

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-19 10:35:30

For Void re latest post in "Worlds" topic ....

Not to intrude, but instead, to respectfully invite/request/encourage further development of your Venus surface dome idea.

I agree that theory would suggest a human designed and manufactured system might exist comfortably on the surface of Venus, provided that it contained a power source of sufficient capability to meet the need.

As we have seen from numerous posts by Calliban, a nuclear fission reactor would (could) produce heat, which might be harnessed for the purpose you have described. However, such a reactor would be needing to vent ** it's ** waste heat to the atmosphere of Venus, in addition to removing such thermal energy as is able to penetrate the outer shell of the dome from the atmosphere of Venus itself.

The challenge for you (and for a team if you form one) is how to design a system with known materials able to perform as desired on the surface of Venus.

It appears that the surface temperature ranges from about 820 degrees to nearly 900 degrees F. The average surface temperature is 847 degrees F., hot enough to melt lead.
The Planet Venus - National Weather Service
www.weather.gov › fsd › venus
About Featured Snippets

The little Google snippet above shows the (approximate) starting point for your deliberations.

(th)

Void · 2022-11-19 10:53:59

Well, a helpful stimulation, does not hurt.

As for cooling I would think that that might be desired per materials desired to use in the dome. The interior of the dome would likely be hot, but maybe not as hot as the outside.

I believe that glass tolerates Sulfuric Acid rather well: https://profoundphysics.com/can-acid-di … in%20glass. Quote:

Sulfuric acid, H2SO4, is not able to dissolve glass, which is why it can be safely stored in a glass container. This is because sulfuric acid is simply not corrosive enough to eat through the extremely strong silicon dioxide (SiO2) bonds that are the main component found in glass.

So, fiber glass over the dome, and perhaps also covering the rock surfaces not being worked by mining processes.

There are various types of glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass

Melting points: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/Sa … uid%20form. Quote:

Depending on it's composition, it can have a melting point of about 1400-1600 °C. However, there are glasses that will melt at lower temperatures but those are not common among commercial nor industrial usage.
The complete process of glass making involves 4 different methods to shape and finish the glass that is in molten liquid form.

So, it might be a good question to ask if some types of glass are rather strong at high temperatures. Metals cooled too much will shatter like glass. Might glass heated up have some qualities more similar to metals at Earth temperatures?

As far as fission power goes, could you use glass, or Sulfur, or Salts as a coolant in a refrigeration process for the inside of the domes?
Maybe Lead?

Some mountains on Venus have a metal snow: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne … to%20frost. Quote:

At the very top of Venus’s mountains, beneath the thick clouds, is a layer of snow. But since it’s so hot on Venus, snow as we know it can’t exist. Instead, the snow capped mountains are capped with two types of metal: galena and bismuthinite.

Galina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena
Melting Point? https://www.ajsonline.org/content/307/3 … trajectory.

Bismuthinite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuthinite Quote:

Bismuthinite
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Bismuthinite
Bismuthinite.jpg
Bismuthinite - Schlaggenwald (Horni Slavkov) - Bohemia - Czech Republic (XX 1.1cm)
General
Category Sulfide mineral
Formula
(repeating unit) Bi2S3
Strunz classification 2.DB.05a
Crystal system Orthorhombic
Crystal class Dipyramidal (mmm)
H-M symbol: (2/m 2/m 2/m)
Space group Pbnm
Identification
Color Lead-gray to tin-white, with a yellowish or iridescent tarnish.
Crystal habit Slender prismatic to acicular, massive lamellar
Cleavage [010] Perfect
Fracture Uneven
Tenacity Brittle, sectile
Mohs scale hardness 2
Luster Metallic
Streak Lead grey
Specific gravity 6.8 - 7.2
Optical properties Opaque
References [1][2][3]
Bismuthinite is a mineral consisting of bismuth sulfide (Bi2S3). It is an important ore for bismuth. The crystals are steel-grey to off-white with a metallic luster. It is soft enough to be scratched with a fingernail and rather dense.
Bismuthinite forms a series with the lead, copper, bismuth mineral aikinite (PbCuBiS3).[3]

Bismuthinite crystal group from Bolivia (size: 2.9 x 1.9 x 1.5 cm)
This microprobe scan of a quartz-rich gold ore from the Ädelfors Goldmine shows the orientation of bismuthinite and various other phases, mostly maldonite, along trails, probably former cracks
It occurs in hydrothermal veins with tourmaline-bearing copper veins associated with granite, in some high temperature gold veins, and in recent volcanic exhalation deposits. Associated minerals include native bismuth, aikinite, arsenopyrite, stannite, galena, pyrite, chalcopyrite, tourmaline, wolframite, cassiterite and quartz.[1]
It was first reported in 1832 from the mines of Potosí, Bolivia.[

Well, some chances of using Nuclear with a coolant of some strange type.

Perhaps a lake of molten salts to reject heat?

However, other energy sources might work out better.

A mining operation might be a very deep open pit under the dome. You would insulate the walls of the pit with fiberglass, and also the top of the dome. Also, only the surface to be worked would open to radiate heat directly into the dome. In the mining process, if glasses could be extracted from the raw ore, then fiberglass wool could be manufactured on the site.

Remember that a cooled dome might still be rather hot by our standards, since electronics seem to be able to be high temperature.

A problem with an immediate attempt to define something too much is that it lacks experimental data, and so is likely to go into a Cul-de-sac. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cul-de-sac

If you do it that way, you are bound to come up with a solution that does not apply to the reality you might be trying to work with.

So, just broad-brush strokes to the imagination of the reader.

I expect we will all be likely to have passed from this world before humans and their machines may do this on Venus.

But it could be good for the imagination.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 11:19:19)

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-19 11:22:32

For Void ....

If we (NewMars readers) are lucky, you will continue developing these ideas.

I found (er, Google found) citations showing that silicon-dioxide exists in solid form in the surface conditions of Venus, so I surmise that a dome made of the material would be solid.

(th)

Void · 2022-11-19 11:28:08

Good work! Yes, while some Earth methods won't work on Venus, Venus may have things that work there. Things that we will want to find.

It never hurts to have a look at what movers and shakers, and even professionals have been doing: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Ne … &FORM=VIRE Quote:

New NASA Venus Mission Will Lead to Mind Blowing Technology
YouTube · 232,000+ views · 7/24/2020 · by Anton Petrov

In some ways it is too bad that the USSR broke up. Granted being alive and "Free?", is a good thing though.

I'm not free! I cost a lot.

But I do value not being worked over by thuggish people.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 11:33:17)

tahanson43206 · 2022-11-19 11:57:14

For Void ....

I am working on something for SpaceNut, which brings me online, so I am tempted to try to encourage you (again) to keep going in this (to me quite interesting) new direction.

Reminding you of your "balloons" on Mars .... a similar structure might be made of silicon-dioxide on Venus, and (if it is deployed with care) it might float in the hot dense atmosphere of Venus.

Hopefully you can find support for this variation on your (already famous) balloon idea.

(th)

Void · 2022-11-19 12:09:15

Well, I believe that the Russians had the first notion of floating cities.

But up/down balloons, or aircraft with cryogenic fluids, that is a good one as well.

So, what might it look like in some places?
https://science.nasa.gov/surface-venus-venera-14
https://www.planetary.org/articles/ever … rface-ever
So, an image quote that shows loose rocks: https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/web/ … 9.jpg.webp

So, if you have a method to deliver dry ice and liquid Nitrogen to the surface, then you could have surface mining with a "Rock Picker" robot which would need to have infusions of cryogenic fluids to run, and to protect its sensitive parts, such as electronics.

Power for it would be the boiling of a fluid to a steam and the use of a turbine. If it would run low, then it would need to stay quiet and just protect its sensitive parts, for as long as can be done. It would, I suppose await a refill from a tanker of some kind.

Its task might be quite simple. Pick up rocks and put them into a bin. Then a lighter than air ship could come down and hook the basket and bring it up to a city in the sky.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 12:17:35)

Void · 2022-11-19 14:01:35

(th) said:

Reminding you of your "balloons" on Mars .... a similar structure might be made of silicon-dioxide on Venus, and (if it is deployed with care) it might float in the hot dense atmosphere of Venus.

Well, the floating device I have suggested is very grandiose indeed. But since it is a dream, why not?

It could be anything from a single floating city to a ring around the planet to a total shell over the planet, but within the atmosphere. I guess you could start small and work your way up as far as is practical and desired.

In order to have heavy structures including nice glass portions, I anticipate the possibility of having multiple floors all the way down to say 10 bars of atmosphere to 1/3 bar of atmosphere.

If fusion becomes practical, then some of the flotation would be with Helium. That is an unknown.

But other flotation gases could also be an air simulant and Nitrogen more or less.

To avoid corrosion from Oxygen perhaps at the 10 bar level much of the chambers might be filled with Nitrogen. At 10 bars there should be lots of flotation.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration … atmosphere
Quote: https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/ima … rticle.jpg

This gives a pressure profile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospher … impossible.
Quote: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … re.svg.png

The sunlight being intense, it may be good to have some cloud layer above the highest part of the structure, to attenuate it a bit.

I realize that a structure that goes 10 bars deep into the atmosphere, and up to 1/3 bar, is preposterous, but why limit dreams. Let reality limit them. People will likely want to be able to be in the sunlight, and so that likely can be provided for. As well, they might have aircraft that can get them above the clouds entirely, but of course those would need pressurized cabins.

So, the Sulfuric Acid will come in liquid and vapor form. Glass structures may easily deflect the liquids, and perhaps capture them.

So, some life is acid tolerant. It may be that features of this could be incorporated into crops???
https://sciworthy.com/strange-microbes- … uric-acid/

Anyway, the outer cladding of much of the floating city might have gardens where raw atmosphere is brought in, at a slow rate, but liquid acid is kept out. These might be of glass. It may be necessary to remove some of the acid vapors as well. I don't know. These would not be places where people without Personal Protective Equipment would hang out. It would be nice if organisms would be able to convert small amounts of acid to water, but otherwise machines might do it. This sort of outer layer made mostly of glasses would protect the more inner chambers that would give flotation and better life support.

You could have glass rooms where life support does not require PPE, but then all you will see is clouds, I think, but the sunshine would be on you in a diffused sort of way.

One possible way to terraform Venus, should it not have life, would be to extract all the Hydrogen you could from the H2SO4 clouds. Then to make it into water and store that somewhere. Some could be in the floating city; some could be sent to orbit. Some Hydrogen might be used as propellants in orbits.

There may be a continuing influx of more Hydrogen from the solar wind, so you would need to get ahead of that, so that the amount of Sulfuric Acid was reduced. The next thing you might want to try to get rid of would-be Sulfur in the atmosphere. If the planet cooled enough, then you might store in down below, but that would be a long way off.

If you could lift it to space, then Sulfur makes a useful building material. Here are some materials about that:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … ence_paper

https://www.sulphurinstitute.org/about- … materials/

So there is a concern about Sulfur sublimation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 3587901151

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 3587901151

If things were to be made in the orbit including sulfur, perhaps some reflective foil would protect it from sublimation.

To lift a lot of Sulfur to orbit, would be expensive, but perhaps the materials usefulness might justify it to some degree.

Another concern is that it might burn. So, you could make a multilayered structure with sun shading on the outside, a Sulfur containing composite inside that, and perhaps an air containing structure inside of that. Perhaps a metal spinning can or torus. I guess Sulfur and rock might do so radiation shielding and thermal conditioning.

Anyway, I would be an enormous task to get all that Sulfur to orbit, and I am not sure it would be desired to get rid of the clouds anyway.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 14:41:57)

Void · 2022-11-19 21:54:11

I want to move to the Moon now. Recently we had a sort of traffic jam in "Index» Interplanetary transportation» Propellant Sourced from Moon"

And that is fine. I can extract my part and get out of the way by doing my part here.

For my part, here is the initiation dialog:

Online
Report Quote
#82022-11-16 06:49:26
Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,875
Email
[Electrolysis on mars, earth, moon all have the issue of power constant use among other issues.]
That is not necessarily true as one of the reasons for going to the poles on the Moon is those peaks of eternal light and we can make infrastructure light so we can get more light and in that way solar power.
One of the options we can have is the use of solar electric tugs these tugs using magnetism for all intents could be a slow but reliable way of being able to bring fuel probabily in the form of tanks of methane or ammonia from low to high earth orbit but when mixed with oxygen extracted from the moon able to power missions further into space even to fueling a potential Mars to Earth cycler
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Report Quote
#92022-11-16 11:34:14
Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 4,975
Email
I like the idea. Are you thinking of riding the solar wind with magnetic bubbles?
Done.
Done.

Quote (Post #15 from that topic):

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,875
Email
Void wrote:
I like the idea. Are you thinking of riding the solar wind with magnetic bubbles?
Done.
Oh magnetics yes but utilising long cables and solar power to create electrodynamic tugs which use lorentz forces on the earths magnetic field to either slow or speed up a vehicle.
Nasa proved the technology works on its TSS and TSR missions from the space shuttle
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

(th) and I got a bit tangled up as I was considering post #15, but he apparently was considering post #14.
He seems to say so in post #16 & #19.

So, we were both right in our way, but I have pulled my notions out and copied them here to work with.

In post #17, I said this:

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 4,975
Email
If I understand, these will be electrodynamic tethers, for in orbit propulsion. Yes, there are many things almost lost. This is one to have a strong look at in my opinion. (th), I will keep you in mind as I speak to hope to develop a shared view. This apparently on Grypd's mind, let's consider that he is the current master of corrections for me, should I goof up.
Here is a Wiki, for those who might desire to investigate it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether
Quote:
Electrodynamic tether
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Medium close-up view, captured with a 70 mm camera, shows tethered satellite system deployment.
Electrodynamic tethers (EDTs) are long conducting wires, such as one deployed from a tether satellite, which can operate on electromagnetic principles as generators, by converting their kinetic energy to electrical energy, or as motors, converting electrical energy to kinetic energy.[1] Electric potential is generated across a conductive tether by its motion through a planet's magnetic field.
A number of missions have demonstrated electrodynamic tethers in space, most notably the TSS-1, TSS-1R, and Plasma Motor Generator (PMG) experiments.
I will speak as if I understand this a little. This could be considered a bit like an electric train engine/generator. Going up the hill you use electric power to the motor to travel against gravity. Going down the hill you use gravity to power your generator.
If we could liquify the Moon and conduct it down a spout as a liquid and run a turbine, we could generate power and cover the Earth in Liquid Moon. Good thing that is not a real likelihood. We would use magnetic drag, to drop the load, and also generate electricity, if I am thinking correctly. If I understand you Grypd, you do want to liquify part of the Moon, and conduct it to lower Earth orbits. The liquid being Oxygen. But of course, we don't use a turbine or a normal generator. So, if it can be done, the inputs needed are to create Oxygen on the Moon, and to get it into at least a Lunar orbit. Then to use the tethers in generator mode to draw the load towards lower Earth orbits.
The contest between the Earth's magnetic field and the solar wind, causes the Earth's solar wind to impinge on the Moon periodically.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s … gnetotail/
The propulsive devices can also work with the solar wind, but perhaps not quite as well. But once a month for a period of time the Earth's magnetic field envelops the Moon. Also, the clash between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field may create magnetic compression, and I am interested in how that could be utilized, if possible.
While the Electrodynamic tethers are exciting, I would also wonder how they might be used in conjunction with other propulsion methods.
Perhaps it is time for me to be done, and to hope for a reply of some kind.
Done.
Last edited by Void (Yesterday 12:55:50)
Done.

So, patience and we avoided a head on collision of ideas.

For Oxygen from the Moon, I would not restrict the source to only ices but expand to regolith.
https://www.freethink.com/space/moon-oxygen
Quote:

Now let’s assume the average depth of regolith on the Moon is about ten meters, and that we can extract all of the oxygen from this. That means the top ten meters of the Moon’s surface would provide enough oxygen to support all eight billion people on Earth for somewhere around 100,000 years.

So, Grypd's idea:

One of the options we can have is the use of solar electric tugs these tugs using magnetism for all intents could be a slow but reliable way of being able to bring fuel probabily in the form of tanks of methane or ammonia from low to high earth orbit but when mixed with oxygen extracted from the moon able to power missions further into space even to fueling a potential Mars to Earth cycler

I have not seen a plan for getting the Oxygen from the surface of the Moon to the tugs, so I will offer a possibility.

We could say the phrase "Mass Driver", but Dr. Johnson has indicated that it will be very hard to send a canister of Oxygen to Lunar orbits, and also even a chemical rocket. We know of the works of the 70's or so, Gerard K. O'Neill and others. So, they are parenting figures who's thoughts we might try to build on. We want to send stuff into Lunar orbits, and we want it to be able to further navigate.

Like many other people I can draw on things I am familiar with. Taconite Pellets. They are sort of glued into pellets, the beneficiated ore by using bentonite clay and a kiln. https://www.ebay.com/itm/165734851714?c … 642000cffb

We would want something much bigger, of an ideal size and shape to shoot out of a mass driver.
Some of the possible desired tricks:
-Chemicals bonded to Oxygen that are also desired at some location beyond the Moon itself.
-Magnetic and/or conductive elements to be embedded into the projectile.
-Photovoltaic cells added perhaps to the front of the projectile, they will have to be rugged.
-Some kind of computer brain.
-Some way for these things to know where they are.

It is a fairly tall order, but I think spin launch actually has a chemical rocket as it's payload, so perhaps not impossible.

If these things could be powered by solar energy, they may be able to navigate on the solar wind, using electrical currents though metal conductors embedded in the "Pellets". I guess maybe Aluminum wire. I would expect that a mass driver could act like a stator in an induction motor, and the "Pellets" would then develop a counter EMF and so a reactive magnetic field. So, these could be launched.

The mass driver would send them to an "L" location where a receiver might be. The internal magnetic drive would allow the "Pellets" to fine tune their trajectory. But I suppose some other methods might be tried as well.

The receiver would have magnetic balls inside it for shock absorption. But being a sort of a rotating cone??? then also able to help capture the "Pellets" with synthetic gravity. But it would also have a very powerful magnetic field. This might require that the Lunar "L4" or "L5" location be used, to help it stay in place with the solar wind's bombardment.

So, that's a start.

As for chemicals of the "Pellet" I have already suggested Oxygen in a bonded chemical, Aluminum, Iron/Steel. I would also add Hydrogen somehow also bonded with the "pellet's" chemistry. Hydrated Minerals.

So, then these collected and delivered to a processing facility, perhaps at some point processed to yield various substances and solar cells, conductors, water, etc.

Then other means, even including what was suggested by Grypd, the

solar electric tugs these tugs using magnetism for all intents

.

If a part of the journey were though the Earth's magnetic field, using electrodynamic tethers, then they can run in generator mode, generating electricity while drawing the load(s) down the Earth's gravity well. A neat trick if we could do it.

That is a pretty good recovery of the flow I desired.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 22:45:09)

Void · 2022-11-19 22:48:16

And Mineral Hydration may give you clays: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_hydration

Quote:

In chemistry, mineral hydration is an inorganic chemical reaction which adds water to the crystal structure of a mineral, usually creating a new mineral, usually called a hydrate.
In geological terms, the process of mineral hydration is known as retrograde alteration and is a process occurring in retrograde metamorphism. It commonly accompanies metasomatism and is often a feature of wall rock alteration around ore bodies. Hydration of minerals occurs generally in concert with hydrothermal circulation which may be driven by tectonic or igneous activity.

Quote:

Processes
There are two main ways in which minerals hydrate. One is conversion of an oxide to a double hydroxide, as with the hydration of calcium oxide—CaO—to calcium hydroxide—Ca(OH)2, the other is with the incorporation of water molecules directly into the crystalline structure of a new mineral.[1] The later process is exhibited in the hydration of feldspars to clay minerals, garnet to chlorite, or kyanite to muscovite.[citation needed]
Mineral hydration is also a process in the regolith that results in conversion of silicate minerals into clay minerals.[citation needed]
Some mineral structures, for example, montmorillonite, are capable of including a variable amount of water without significant change to the mineral structure.[citation needed]
Hydration is the mechanism by which hydraulic binders such as Portland cement develop strength. A hydraulic binder is a material that can set and harden submerged in water by forming insoluble products in a hydration reaction. The term hydraulicity or hydraulic activity is indicative of the chemical affinity of the hydration reaction.[2]
Examples of hydrated minerals
Examples of hydrated minerals include:
silicates (SiO4−
4, SiO2)
phyllosilicates, clay minerals "commonly found on Earth as weathering products of rocks or in hydrothermal systems"[1]
chlorite[citation needed]
muscovite[citation needed]
nonsilicates
oxides (O−
2, Al2O3,·Fe2O3, etc.)
brucite[1]
goethite[1]
carbonates (CO2−
3, etc.)
hydromagnesite[1]
hydroxylated minerals
saponite[1]
talc[1]
tochilinite, a sulfide[1]

So, then the trick might involve baking a "Pellet" with embedded metal components, and then putting some solar cells on the front of it, and somehow then shooting it out of a mass driver, and having it survive.

I would think that clays would be good to have on the Moon for other things as well.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-19 22:52:45)

Void · 2022-11-20 08:59:44

This morning, I am having a look at mass drivers. We have had linear mass drivers suggested by many on lots of occasions. Linear Mass Drivers.

Spin launch has things to offer: https://techacute.com/spinlaunch-launch … %20methods. Quote:

SpinLaunch launches a satellite by throwing it up to a distance in a thinner atmosphere, where two-stage chemical rocket fires and assists in covering the rest of the distance requiring a small fraction of fuel compared to other methods.

So, due to Spin Launch tech, we can suppose that a chemical rocket might be launched by a mass driver. So, if "Pellets" were mass produced on the Moon, they might include a chemical thrust capability subsequent to the launch. It is good to have that possible option.

This morning it occurred to me that we have many circular craters on the Moon and other worlds. These are of various sizes, and some might suit a middle ground between a Linear Mass Driver and Spin Launch System. So, then a circular rail, then allowing more than one spin around the track while building up speed.

How you then unhook to launch may be some trouble to figure the tech out for. The value of this is your acceleration rate can be brought down, as you can do multiple spins around the track. If you lower the acceleration rate, then you place less stress on the payload, and it can have more options such as relatively delicate secondary propulsion options.

I think the spin thing has been discussed in some of Isaac Arthurs videos, although I am not sure that I recall the Moon. So, this thing could do a "Spinney!". A "Spinney Mass Driver".

So, I think some version of this should work out, so then Mass from the Moon, is likely a option.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-20 09:10:51)

Void · 2022-11-20 09:41:34

If a multistage propulsion system can be created, then it may not be required to launch the loads to an "L" location.

If I recall, some orbits of the Moon decay easily. That can be a good thing. It is its own natural cleaning system then. We would not want to fill places in space with lingering collision hazards.

This article seems to seek stable Lunar orbits: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … %202016%29.

This article may be more appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit Quote:

Low lunar orbit (LLO) are orbits below 100 km (62 mi) altitude. They have a period of about 2 hours.[2] They are of particular interest in exploration of the Moon, but suffer from gravitational perturbation effects that make most unstable, and leave only a few orbital inclinations possible for indefinite frozen orbits, useful for long-term stays in LLO.[2]

I do want low orbits, and those that are unstable, so that if an object lofted cannot be efficiently retrieved, it will crash into the Lunar surface eventually. The crashing events may be a hazard to things on the Lunar surface, but the odds of a bull's eye onto a mass driver should be rather small.

So, to do this we need a mass driver, and probably one that has a relatively slow acceleration, which I think a circle track "Spinney" mass driver could do. Then we need a sufficiently active payload, that can modify its orbit to become retrievable by a collector which would be in orbit. We likely would like some kind of solid chemical rocket composed of Lunar Materials, for the initial orbital modification. Then it might be possible to have incorporated a low yield magnetic propulsion system, which might react to the solar wind, and/or the Earth's magnetic tail as might be appropriate. So, perhaps 3 modifications. Mass Driver, Chemical, and then magnetosphere.

If this were possible, then the workload of the Mass Driver can be reduced, and its practical function be made more possible.

So, then a retriever craft in orbit might be useful. For the moment I will work with Plasma Bubble Drive as the primary propulsion method, and hope that it can work out.

So, the retriever craft then may have a synthetic gravity catcher cup and might also have an intense magnetic field. It may have magnetic ping pong balls in its catcher cup, so that this can server in part as a shock absorber, should one of the objects impacts into it. Of course, there could be anchored shock absorbers as well in back of those. Perhaps air bags. Its intent is that if the balls at knocked out of the cup, the magnetic field will eventually get them back to the retriever, or they will crash into the Moon as orbital decay occurs.

So, the hope is to be able to tolerate a significant differential speed, if necessary.

Another hope is that the magnetics of these devices, the catcher and the payloads, can use the forces native the environment to modify their orbits.

If indeed the solar wind and/or Earth's magnetic tail can add momentum to the catcher. Then it might be possible to have a mass driver on the catcher, that would send the loads further on. But I think that complicates things more than I might like. I guess if enough of payloads are collected then the idea might be to transport them to a vehicle(s) that could bring them to a desired location.

And that might possibly involve an electrodynamic tether propulsion method, or also perhaps simply the use of magnetic sails in the solar wind/Earth's magnetic field.

A utility of using mass drivers to send loads to low Lunar orbit is that the needed mass driver capability might be minimized to a possible practicality, and that such orbits may be self-cleaning. If a payload malfunctions, the hope is that it's orbit will decay, and it will crash into the Moon.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-20 10:19:36)

Void · 2022-11-20 10:31:08

I admit, that if the catcher has a strong magnetic field, then in low Lunar orbit, it may experience magnetic drag. However, that also might be used for navigation, as the solar wind and possibly the Earth's magnetic tail may be used for navigation, and so then the inductive reaction of the Lunar lithosphere, as there will be some possibility of magnetic reactions, either with eddy currents and maybe also existing permanent magnetism.

I have even wondered if you could have a magnetic wheel on a spacecraft, to react with the Lunar surface. If you had a upward pointing tether to give a counterpoint, and then rotated a magnetic field in your spacecraft, then you might have an inductive magnetic drive. But of course, you must then also consider reactions to the solar wind and/or the Earth's magnetic tail.

You also might have a tether to snag stuff off of the surface, but that is weird, at least. Probably something is conceivable, but practical? I don't know.

Fun stuff.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-20 10:34:21)

Void · 2022-11-20 12:07:48

So, it is considered likely that robots and telepresence would be reasonable to use on the Moon. This would greatly reduce the cost of life support, while allowing sufficient abilities to manipulate objects, to get results that might be useful.

The easiest thing to export from the Moon could be sunlight. But we call the natural export of sunlight from the Moon Moonlight.

While the process might produce a potential for danger, I do not feel that it is an unacceptable risk. After all, we are in constant danger of death from many factors in our lives already. But somehow, at this time the hammer does not fall.

In "Index» Not So Free Chat» When Science becomes perverted by Politics.", I have discussed the local climate situation for California, and the North American Continental Southwest. My last post on that matter was post #624, as of yesterday.

So, with mirrors on the Moon's near side, we might manipulate weather on Earth, and also perhaps also provide energy density to solar powered spacecraft. We could let Dr. Evil control this but of course no.

Heliostats might point to the North Pacific and warm it up just a little bit. The objective being to push moisture into the Troposphere, with the expectation of rains and snows for the Southwest. This could be done for Chile, and Namibia also.

In the case of California, it might also be possible to draw moisture into the Great Basin, by causing more evaporation in California. This might be coordinated with wind direction. Unlike machines on the ground that would desalinate fresh water from sea water, intense brine concentrations would not be created.

But perhaps I am useful to fuss budgets as they can now fuss about what I just posted Have fun!

In actuality, leaving the Earth out of it, the far side of the Moon with mirrors on it could produce energy concentrations for spacecraft in orbits.

The Moon mirrors might also protect some crops from some frosts.

If the concern is the overheating of the planet, then light shined on sea water would help to promote Carbon Capture, and some of that would be long term. That would cool the planet more than the extra sunlight would warm it.

So, I guess that is enough for a post.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-20 12:39:35)

Void · 2022-11-20 19:05:41

I think I can hear the howling of neopaganism out there!

Let me attempt to justify my notion of mirrors on the Moon to send light to Earth.

First of all, if I told you, it was economical to put power satellites into Earth orbit and beam power down to Earth with microwaves, some would say great, and some would be concerned that this would heat up Earth.

But Isaac Arthur has said that no, that would not be much of a concern, as it is greenhouse gasses that would do far more warming, and of course if you sent power to Earth, presumably you would burn fewer fossil fuels, and of course fossil fuels is the work of sinners, we all know.

But now if you wanted to do Carbon capture out of the atmosphere, you could take that beamed power and use it to do that. We can hope that the beamed power could create a "Carbon Neutral" or even Carbon depleting situation per the atmosphere.

But there is this as a possible alternative: https://www.discovermagazine.com/enviro … n-the-moon Quote:

How to Harvest Terawatts of Solar Power on the Moon
The CruxBy David WarmflashApr 22, 2016 1:03 PM

My understanding of the beamed microwave power is that it would be perhaps 1/4 to 1 time as intense as sunlight. So, then presumed to not be lethal, or damaging.

It is an interesting plan. You could build collectors and projectors on the Moon and beam the power to receiving antennae on Earth. Then some of the power could be used to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.

And fine, do that if you like but wouldn't it be easier to have Heliostats on the Moon to shine light to places on Earth? This then might sequester CO2 and produce food. It might also heat and evaporate cold ocean water. That moisture might fall into places where it was desired/needed.

Do you see that this is much simpler, to obtain economic and environmental benefits?

But there could be concerns. One is to Safegard that the system is not optimal for Dr. Evil to extort money and power. I think that could be done.

And we may have a concern for wildlife and especially certain wildlife.

So, this light would come from the direction of the Moon, so wildlife might not be too upset by that as a certain amount of that occurs as it is.

My preference is that it would more likely go to patches of sea water where there is less bird life, and less unique other life, at least at or near the surface.

I only hope to warm the surface water a little bit, but that will in part stimulate evaporation of water vapor into the Troposphere. Places like the North American Southwest, other temperate deserts might be also treated this way.

OK, the question of growing microbes in "Moonshine" is kind of iffy. I of course do not refer to booze here, but reflected sunlight from the Moon. https://gardensuperior.com/can-a-plant- … explained/
Quote:

However, moonlight from a full moon has been shown to support a tiny amount of photosynthesis in plant life like algae and plankton.

So, it may be possible. Keep in mind that we see the Moon in the sky some when the sun is up. Of course, it is unknown how much extra light may help microbes in the oceans to grow. By unknown, I mean we don't yet know well enough. It should be discoverable.

Although I would not favor a more intense focus to a place on Earth, it might be possible and necessary. I am guessing 10% or 20% of noon day sunlight might be approximately worth investigating. Plants requirements for sunlight are somewhat complex, and perhaps that is also true for microbes in the oceans.

While warming a spot in the ocean will facilitate increased evaporation, it may also cause the surface water to warm and pancake outwards away from the target. This in turn should bring up deeper water which may have nutrients the microbes will need.

This process should facilitate the greater production of sea foods, but not being perfectly efficient, some produced organic matter will fall to the deeps and be sequestered there. This bringing Carbon from the air down to the deep waters. Even if creatures down there eat it and exhale CO2, that CO2 will tend to stay down there a long time.

------

But if you happen to be on the Moon, then you could do the microwave thing as well, and beam that at locations for consumers.

Either of these could also be used on occasion to fight killing frosts, in some situations.

So, power from the Moon.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-11-20 19:39:42)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#601 2022-11-17 05:05:11

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#602 2022-11-17 09:01:26

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#603 2022-11-17 14:02:39

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#604 2022-11-17 20:13:27

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#605 2022-11-18 12:22:06

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#606 2022-11-18 12:39:21

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#607 2022-11-18 13:58:59

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#608 2022-11-18 18:17:58

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#609 2022-11-18 18:35:02

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#610 2022-11-18 18:37:32

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#611 2022-11-19 10:02:31

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#612 2022-11-19 10:35:30

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#613 2022-11-19 10:53:59

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#614 2022-11-19 11:22:32

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#615 2022-11-19 11:28:08

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#616 2022-11-19 11:57:14

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#617 2022-11-19 12:09:15

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#618 2022-11-19 14:01:35

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#619 2022-11-19 21:54:11

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#620 2022-11-19 22:48:16

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#621 2022-11-20 08:59:44

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#622 2022-11-20 09:41:34

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#623 2022-11-20 10:31:08

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#624 2022-11-20 12:07:48

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

#625 2022-11-20 19:05:41

Re: Worlds, and World Engine type terraform stuff.

Board footer