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

Martin 53N 1W;
I think you're getting warmer, at least a bit closer to the reality of
how freaking hot and nasty space travel is if there's no shade to be
found, such as those NASA/Apollo supposed moonsuit EVAs that really had
to suck in more ways than you or I could shake a flaming stick at.
> The ISS is a very artificial case. Note that it suffers great extremes
> of temperature as it passes through the sunlit and then dark parts of
> orbit. Early on, extra thermal shielding was required to stop the solar
> panel motors from jamming...

That's entirely true about ISS being quite artificial, such as being
nearly 95% reflective or at least somewhat better off than your ice
albedo and otherwise extremely well insulated, yet without continuous
water circulation and loads of thermal radiating surface area is still
capable of roasting itself nearly to death from each illuminated
passage that's for a relatively short amount of exposure before getting
itself rather nicely shaded and thus cooled back off within a nighttime
environment that's well below sub-freezing. I believe it's 'energy in =
energy out' or else. Thus if ISS stayed within the full solar influx it
would either explode and/or implode, either way it likely wouldn't
survive nearly as nicely as per your 100% solar illuminated raw ice in
space that's apparently become good for an impressive 603.5 y/km3.

> With the same assumptions but for a 1 km^3 block of ice, then my
> (error prone) calculations come to: 19043440 seconds x 1000

> = 19043440000 seconds
> = 220410 days ( including 24 hours in a day this time! :) )
> = 603.5 years
> (when at 1 AU from our sun)

I tend to believe that 220410 days is roughly 605 years as based upon
364.25 day/year.

Though going by your numbers, and since there's actually a billion m3
per km3, it becomes 0.0000006035 year/m3 or 5.287e-3 hour/m3 (19.033
seconds/m3), or is that another one of those "error prone" calculations
getting us a bit further off-track as to being perhaps a wee bit too
short of survival per m3, as being yet another one of those "error
prone" math sort of oops?

If so, at least I believe it's the sort of oops/error that's taking us
in the right direction.

Too bad our crack ISS crew is so mainstream snookered (so entirely borg
like bought and paid for) and otherwise so easily dumbfounded that they
can't possibly manage to accomplish such a highly complex task of
testing a little raw ice survival in space. There must be some
perfectly ulterior cloak and dagger reasons for this, especially since
the influx of raw ice as having survived within the close vicinity of
our sun, as for that raw ice becoming our oceans is about all that
there is that's actually scientifically as well as Godly essential and
thus important about life as we know it. Yet yourself and most all
others continually blow this form of hard-science via ISS or even via a
simple SBR delivered m3 of ice that could be easily observed via
internal probe as well as from Earth, as affording an honest topic
that's not entirely off the edge of Earth as though it's nothing worth
more than a few more of your conditional-physics thus bogus math
conjectures as based entirely upon squat worth of hard-science.

Perhaps we could all use one of those spendy MI5/NSA NOVA infomercial
productions, having those nifty though spendy super-computer 3D
animations and surround-sound as to improve upon the quality of
conjectures and otherwise polish the totally subjective
conditional-physics science of whatever our mainstream cultism wants
folks to believe regardless of whatever the objective hard-science
truth has been capable of delivering for nearly a half century but,
clearly having knowingly elected to stick with their smoke and mirrors
because the results of that method doesn't rock any of their religious
and/or social/political for-profit and for snookering thy humanity
boats.

Although, I'll have to admit, at least your latest conjecture of
5.287e-3 hour/m3 or 19 seconds/m3 is taking us in the right direction
of what the survival of raw ice in space at 1 AU and being 100% solar
illuminated is all about. Whereas 2 AU should then become 76
seconds/m3, 4 AU becomes 304 seconds/m3 and so forth, making the
survival of Tempel-1 at a possible worth of 250e9 tonnes somewhat
doable as long as it's keeping itself more than 2 AU, plus the added
benefit of having it's raw ice as somewhat shielded by the nearly
frozen CO2 and CO gas and perhaps further shielded by way of it's own
surrounding energy displacement shock-wave (tsunami) from what that
sort of large and extremely dark item as making it's average velocity
of less than 50 km/s.

As I've said before but you've refused to acknowledge because you're
obviously deathly afraid of the vast consequences, that our moon could
be essentially a captured comet, possibly even that of an interstellar
foreign exchange sort of comet that was perhaps once upon a time as
large as 8000 km, as coated in thick layers of various icy elements,
including sufficient raw ice, whereas from such icy moons could have
effectively terraformed the likes of Mars and Earth into livable
planets. Venus still needs it's Kuiper/Oort zone derived icy moon,
perhaps the likes of Sedna at 1800 km in order to ice down the hot and
nasty environment of it's relatively newish although cooling geological
surface that could certainly use a few teratonnes of said ice water
before we set a naked foot on that planet.

You simply can't have viable oceans without having a moon, at least not
the livable sorts of oceans from which so many forms of evolution
supposedly transformed into being the warm and fuzzy nature of dumb and
dumber bigots and thus sufficiently snookered and therefore entirely
dumbfounded souls as are most humans, especially those which voted for
the likes of GW Bush. The oceans of Earth without a moon would soon
become mostly frozen cesspools of the worst possible environment you
can imagine, whereas Earth would likely become nearly if not greater
than 50% ice covered and otherwise offering one hell of a rotting
stench to boot.
~

This is about my 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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why go back to the moon?
    ... Apparently our lunar environment and even that of raw ice in nearby ... to the moon, and the sooner the better because, there are some fools ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Water on the moon or Mars,part-2
    ... certainly not speaking about CO2 as in the form of dry-ice that has to ... to survive in free space (as not associated with any moon or planet) is ... Why are you avoiding the prime question as to raw ice surviving in ... Key word "space" is not speaking of raw ice situated upon our moon or ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Drosophila swordfishii
    ... I'd have thought it'd be more that the moon is a sort of sphere, whereas we see a sort of circle. ... You will only see a completely full moon (i.e. nothing visible is in a shadow) if you are on a line between the centre of the sun and the centre of the moon. ... If we are on the earth then there will be some or a complete shadow from the earth, i.e. a partial to a total eclipse. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Water on the moon or Mars,part-2
    ... >Without our knowing the rate by which raw ice is vaporisedin ... >ice might coexist within our moon, ... What is the 'fully solar illuminated vacuum of space'? ... "intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence" ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: SLAM! Scientists float plan to blast water to moon
    ... pertaining to whatever water or raw ice in space. ... freaking clue as to how many seconds or perhaps microseconds a given m3 ... of raw ice or salty ice will last upon the moon, ... notion of impacting our moon with large blocks or spheres of dry-ice ...
    (sci.space.policy)