Re: Present life on Earth (Was: Life outside the Earth)

Martin 53N 1W Jun 6, 7:16 pm,
Sorry that I'd previously missed this rather unusual contribution.
Thanks for your usual negative about everything under the sun reply,
although it seems rather odd since you're by far the all-knowing
wizard, in that you should have been capable of delivering upon at
least something positive. Although, as long as you've taken to an
actual topic reply;

> Or is it just that the comments are general enough to fit with your
> 'assumed' 'facts'?

Like Einstein, it seems that I too must assume a thing or two,
especially whenever there are such oddly missing in action facts of
what should have been hard-science that remain as nowhere to being
found, and/or at least up until others smarter than myself offer their
version of hard-science that proves otherwise. Such as; for getting ice
onto the moon we'll either have to wrap that ice into something that'll
keep it's cool (like dry-ice), and/or keeping the transit time of
exposing such raw ice to the raw solar influx of 1400 w/m2 and near
vacuum of space that'll need to be kept to the absolute minimum
time-line of getting such delivered to the moon.

Too bad we still don't have a gram worth of hard-science clue as to how
long a cubic meter or even 1000 ccm worth of either water-ice or of
what dry-ice can survive without such vaporising into less than thin
air.

BTW; getting whatever dry-ice, water-ice or O2 upon the moon isn't for
the value of such substances, as it's for impacting the basalt and thus
making a greater amount of an atmosphere that's not intended as
breathable but invaluable for creating a buffer zone and terminal
velocity for getting other items efficiently onto the moon.

> There are easier and more useful things that could be done on the moon
> itself using the materials already there.

This I'll somewhat agree with that statement, although since you're not
willing to contribute as to what sorts of "easier and more useful
things" our moon is good for, I'll suggest that relatively low quality
and thus cheap rockets could manage to impact the moon with whatever,
at not 1% the cost and delay of doing the "DEEP IMPACT" sorts of
missions, and that's not to mention our accomplishing anything about
Pluto which is going to take more than a decade at a horrific cost of a
million fold more than impacting our very own once-upon-a-time icy Oort
zone derived moon. Obviously, regardless of whatever cost and/or
scientific advantages, you see absolutely nothing of value in giving
our moon a slight bit of an atmosphere, by which each subsequent
mission gets safer and cheaper because of what it'll require for
deploying instruments and technology onto the lunar surface becomes
doable, and by which eventually the day/night thermal conditions should
moderate by way of becoming somewhat less hot by day and less cold by
nighttime and via earthshine almost humanly moonsuit survivable, of
much lesser TBI dosage by way of filtering a good amount of the cosmic
and raw solar influx that's otherwise reacting rather badly with our
exposed moon.

Apparently you still do not realize that we have no such fly-by-rocket
landers, nor do the Russians.

BTW; our moon essentially is a large comet that's become somewhat stuck
into orbiting Earth, and fortunately it's still really near and
certainly big to say the least.

> Sorry, the numbers do not add up in this universe.

That's only because those dollars are not going into your pockets and
offshore tax avoidance bank accounts, and otherwise because you're
still into using our perpetrated cold-war of Arthur Andersen accounting
that sucks. I'd bet North Korea could manage to hit the moon with
tonnes of dry-ice, possibly containing the likes of some water-ice and
that greater density core of frozen Radon or just about anything that's
worth impacting for the sake of vaporising the most tonnage of basalt
for less than a cent/dollar, although there's certainly Russia and
always China that doesn't have to bother because they're going in for
the kill of taking control of the interactive ME-L1/EM-L2 zone, if
nothing but somewhat into establishing the halo like orbit until
they've established their first tether as anchored into the moon, thus
rightfully claiming the first one and only lunar space elevator
(LSE-CM/ISS) on behalf of science and humanity, but under the proper
authority and controls imposed by China.

>> How about the notion of pushing a spare Oort zone icy moon into orbiting
>> the likes of Venus?

> Even more implausible numbers! You have a better chance of waiting for
> an existing orbit to coincide.

I'd agree that since we can't manage to land anything upon our moon,
that clearly the spendy odds of getting anything robotic applied onto
or into the surface of the 1800 km Sedna for the task of propelling
that supposedly icy sucker into orbiting and/or impacting with Venus is
something for the likes of planetary terraforming ET wizards, as
clearly not that of whatever such a highly bigoted collective of
humanity could ever achieve. Besides, we'd have to go to war a few more
times just in order to obtain the necessary energy as to making such an
effort happen, and that a lot of LLPOF phony baloney WMD to invent.

>> How about the notion of pushing a spare Oort zone icy moon into orbiting
>> the likes of Venus?

> The numbers work better if you can do something clever with what is
> already there nearby.

I agree that we should merely redirect a few of those NEOs, as
potentially Earth killer items getting diverted into impacting the
moon, thus accomplishing the ultimate termination of any such threat to
Earth, as well as for vaporising megatonnes worth of lunar basalt into
becoming another healthy portion of atmosphere. I wonder what it'll
become worth for Earth as to avoiding a 1 km item of perhaps 7~8 g/cm3
density (that's merely 4e9 tonnes that's capable of arriving at a final
velocity of 10+km/s = 2e23 joules) diverted away from impacting Earth
(quite probably avoiding such from landing directly upon and thus
vaporising nearly everything East of the Mississippi, thus pulverising
and/or flooding the entire state of NY).

Of course terraforming our moon isn't for the likes of accommodating
mere naked humans, as that would be pathetically stupid and otherwise
remaining damn risky for even moonsuit EVA's. Even 0.1 bar would remain
as a relatively short term lethal exposure, whereas it's for getting
robotics applied and safely functioning upon the surface, eventually
creating sufficiently deep underground habitats for humans and/or
inmates or just for accomplishing the ultimate safe-house for returning
astronauts that can't ever set foot upon Earth without fear of
transferring a lethal microbe or of some mutated DNA/RNA that could
wipe out all of humanity.

Of course within the CM of the LSE is where being situated 60,000 some
odd km away from that highly reactive moon and surrounded on all sides
by at least 50 tonnes/m2 worth of basalt is going to become safe for
the long term science and other habitat functions that'll protect us
humans from the gauntlet of physical and radiation threats that do
exist.

Thus your numbers that supposedly "do not add up" are looking pretty
pathetic. I wonder what having a dozen or so 100 GW laser cannons as
easily and energy efficiently situated to within 50,000 km of Earth is
worth?

At $100/barrel and another half dozen bloody if not thermal nuclear
wars because of that, I can't but wonder what the worth of He3/fusion
is going to become?

>> Again I'll have to 100% agree, that life as we know it may in fact not
>> even be one of those 'higher life forms' that are perhaps not so
>> universal.

> Even so, it is still useful to search for ET.

I think as our fossil fuels run a bit lower and ever more spendier,
it'll become more and more of an S.O.S. as transmitted away from Earth,
though I still believe this is best accomplished from the surface of
our moon in the form of robotic laser cannon beacons that'll hopefully
be focused upon the most viable targets within our 10 LY neighborhood
in order to save our sorry butts. Those beacons of 400~450 nm, of 0.05
milliradian and of the millisecond worth of such analog/digital
composite packets accomplishing the sorts of quantum binary throughput
of at least 1e12 bps worth of messages pleading for ETs to save our
sorry souls, whereas I believe this sort of effort is about as good as
it's going to get. So, I agree that we should be at least making an
effort for ETs to be locating us before it's too late, as there's not
much point in our detecting their existence since there's unlikely the
sorts of ET information that'll improve our quality of life much less
save the sorts of souls associated with those multi-thousand light year
distant ETs that your SETI/OSETI/ETI teams are continually looking at.
Even potential ETs of Sirius are simply too damn far for our technology
to assist, thus it's clearly a vital task and requirement that
they(ETs) know our intentions and respond to our plight before it's too
late.

We need ET science and technology before the likes of our resident
warlord(GW Bush) gets us into WW-III. For that to happen we need to be
making an honest to god effort to at least saying -hi how are you- to
whomever will take our case and show a little remorse and mercy upon
our sorry existence that sucks for more than 90% of us.

I believe your ETs are not immortals, they probably can't manage much
better than 10%c (3e4 km/s), thus a 10 LY trek is a dreadfully boring
and potentially damn risky century worth of interstellar grid-lock
commute. And you think you're cranky after just a couple of commute
hours, just imagine the postal frame of mind for that of an ET after
spending a century just getting here. How much crap would you be
willing to put up with if you were that ET?

Of course unlike yourself, I believe ETs have been here and done that,
as of many times in the past and of the current situation as we're
continually being violated if not run amuck by any number of ETs, some
of which may have arrived form the likes of a somewhat toasty planet
having nearly unlimited green energy to burn. Gee whiz, I wonder how
advanced in space travel we'd have become if we had a similar bout of
thermal environment motivation and access to such enormous and clean
energy as available upon Venus?

Of course by way of your conditional laws of physics uses whatever
skewed science along with evidence exclusions as to eliminate
whatever's otherwise entirely surmountable about accommodating other
life upon Venus, as being the norm of whatever you and your collective
mindset represents, yet you and your SETI friends might suggest humans
upon Mars as doable. In which case, would you mind asking Paul Allen
what he thinks? Or, don't you want to rock that Paul Allen tax
avoidance money boat?

> If you are going to make a new world, you need to be self reliant and
> independent of whatever old world you've left behind!

Christ almighty; talk about being entirely out of context and way over
the edge of your flat Earth, and otherwise just your usual LLPOF
mindset SETI self. I've never once suggested leaving Earth behind on
behalf of accomplishing our moon or Venus, nor have I ever suggested
(other than in jest) that humans need to or should ever live upon Venus
or that of our moon (though within the moon or within the LSE-CM/ISS
offers some merit). Venus and our moon are each extremely usable as is
where is, and I could deliver yet another 5,000 word report on just the
positive aspects of what those to items have enstore for humanity. But
why bother when you're so clearly anti-ET and anti-god that you'd be
putting the likes of Hitler and a couple of Popes going postal over
Cathars to shame.
~

This is about a basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
China/Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few alternative topics from wizard Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

.

Loading