Even a Lunar Space Elevator needs its anchors

perhaps as substantial elevator lobbies, along with all those cozy sublevel floors

(by; Brad Guth / GASA~IEIS     updated: June 27, 2004)

Other updates of the Lunar Space Elevator that have been improved upon:

At least the LSE-CM/ISS tether factor has always been a non-issue, as a physics sort of done deal of basalt and possibly silica composite solution as we speak. Although, the task of folks having to deal with the lunar surface environment certainly remains somewhat testy, even though it's a whole lot less testy when nicely illuminated by way of earthshine and, of eventually being mostly underground (unless within the LM-1 lunar metro bus) is anything but testy. Although, the lunar crust of perhaps -7 km offering a relatively constant 273K is certainly worth our further considering, as such it's even been qualified as warmer yet by others, which clearly makes my previous village idiot estimate off by a good factor of 24K.

The Lunar Space Elevator Tether Base Camp(s) or Lobbies;   as for this LSE and associated sub-surface lobby aspect is still developing upon an ongoing means as to resolving many ends, whereas the LSE-CM/ISS as representing the ultimate moon-dirt-express gateway, as for such being just one of those nifty depot benefits, as an entirely affordable alternative to what is otherwise a some-day in the extremely spendy future fiasco of whatever those ESE huggers can only wish for. Whereas the LSE being sort of the applied physics as per off-the -helf technology will afford all sorts of mission essential capabilities, that which we currently can not accomplish even with the likes of any ESE, and all of this will still be far less handicapped by comparison to whatever those ESE alternatives and/or Earthly limitations may have to offer. So, in the mean time, conventional rocket transports can more than accommodate the to/from job, as more than likely for decades to come, prior to our evere seeing any such ESE capabilities materialize worth their salt (and we're obviously talking megatonnes worth of salt).

At least the LSE-CM/ISS plan is environmentally friendly, in as much as far better off for mother Earth by way of not gassing humanity into a further demise of expediting our global warming trend, accomplishing this by way of avoiding much of those ESE huggers promoting our continued production of thousands of artificial CO2 tonnes per year, that which the ESE itself and of it's vigorous program of supposedly launching thousands of spendy satellites may have to create, each of which having to include auto-tether-avoidance fly-by-wire technology, or else. Whereas simply defending these marvelous ESEs could create and/or lead to even more CO2, and not to mention collateral carnage that's well above all of everything else combined.

Not that I've got any absolute specifics as for accommodating those LSE base-camps as tether anchor lobbies, just that I can now share into some information that's making a whole lot more sense than not, specifically about all of the terrific benefits of going underground, rather than attempting upon any sort of substantial surface structures.

Where in the past I've been primarily concerned with avoiding solar radiation, and of whatever secondary radiation exposure issues, as that's where the 3+ meters was creating a relatively good (1024 g/cm2) worth of shield density comes into play. Although, that insulating R factor per meter of said moon dirt may also offer a much needed R-32/m. That degree of insulation consideration plus creating a specifically engineered layer of R-256/m insulation via basalt fiber and/or microspheres capable of R-1024/m is certainly a perfectly valid option for accommodating such a near surface structured LSE base camp. Even though that prospect represents a great deal of thermal barrier insulation in terms of R factor, I was just thinking again (always a bad sign), that perhaps there's somewhat more lunar core warmth (thermal moderation) to our supposedly dead moon than I've been previously made aware of.

Once again, this being yet another typical example of where others that could easily have offered their expertise, yet strangely all that I've received is their contempt, hardly any of those so called specifics that they have been insisting upon my efforts supporting, instead I'm receiving just loads of their warm and fuzzy flak, and/or disinformation coming at me from all directions. Gee whiz, what a freaking surprise.

With an average/mean surface temperature (nighttime) of -153ºC (120ºK), it will certainly behove us to move this lunar LSE base camp or LSE lobby underground, perhaps taking this a bit further than the 3+ meters worth that I had considered for abating radiation issues, though even the benefit of those 3+ meters should offer some measurable level of thermal releif.

If it's supposedly 170ºC (443ºK) at the -70 km level, then I'm fairly certain I'll soon learn or discover from others (perhaps on that typically "need to know" basis) of what -7 km is most likely, then -700 m as well as -70 m and, of what -7 m has to offer, of which the 3+ meters might end up representing the surface dome or roof density which covers this entry level pavilion/lobby, an interior floor residing at -7 meters, thus affording an overall 4 meter hight of interior, that which may have to suffice until deeper accommodations can be provided. Though a truly good lunar survey, of sufficient ground penetrating radar, might soon locate any number of natural basalt caverns or of lava rille tubes that are already fit to go.

Thankfully, there's always the capability of efficiently creating at least that R-256/m worth of thermal insulation on demand. Being underground represents that we're dealing with mostly conduction mode insulation principles and, as for further benefitting that accomplishment is obviously the bone-dry environment of the moon itself, thus once again the basalt fibers and/or of basalt microsphere insulation barriers should more than accommodate (most likely those basalt microspheres achieving as great as R-1024/m), thus the energy demand along with the typically active body-heat of obtaining 1000 btu per lunar inmate should be easily supplemented and thereby quite doable from relatively limited energy resources, leaving the bulk of energy reserves available for the task of CO2-->CO/O2 process, as well as for processing out other elements, if not merely for melting some of that supposedly mineral rich lunar ice that's supposedly near the surface.

If the raw basalt soil/rock should constitute R-32/m, then 3 meters worth of such is obviously R-96, plus introducing the R-256/m of a basalt fiber and/or microsphere barrier of R-1024/m and lo and behold, we've got way more insulating capability than of the required goal. At such insulation, the additional energy input necessary for sustaining life as you and I know it (nearly irregardless of whatever the exterior environment) isn't going to be such a difficult task, especially since all the raw structural as well as insulating materials are of lunar origin, and that's including the necessary processing energy being lunar resource.

For whatever it's worth; here's some further expertise offered from those that seem to know a great deal more than myself, most specifically notice their input or perhaps focus on the internal lunar structure, of what I'd call the lunar thermal signature. You should also notice that of my village idiot interpretation of what's available has been more conservative than not, such as many folks smarter than myself have been specifying that the lunar soil and basalt rock is a whole lot more insulating than my R33/meter application.

Regarding The Lunar Internal Structure:

"Diffraction of seismic waves provided the first clear-cut evidence for a lunar crust, mantle, and core analogous to those of the earth. The lunar crust is about 45 mi (70 km) thick, making the moon a rigid solid to a greater depth than the earth. The inner core has a radius of about 600 mi (1,000 km), about 2/3 of the radius of the moon itself. The internal temperature decreases from 830ºC (1,530ºF) at the center to 170ºC (340ºF) near the surface. The heat traveling outward near the lunar surface is about half that of the earth but still twice that predicted by current theory. This heat flow is directly related to the rate of internal energy production, so that the internal temperature profile provides information about long-lived radio isotopes and the moon's thermal evolution. The heat-flow measurements indicate that the moon's radioactive content is higher than that of the earth. The moon's magnetic field is a million times weaker than that of the earth, but it varies by a factor of 20 from point to point on the surface. Certain rocks retain a high magnetization, indicating that they crystallized in the presence of magnetic fields much higher than those presently existing on the moon. Mascons are large concentrations of unusually high density that are located below certain of the circular maria. The mascons may have been created by the implantation of very dense, iron-rich meteorites, whose impact formed the mare basins themselves."


Of another most interesting, generally that of a Moon/lunar ARTEMIS infomercial site, and of their entirely respectable forums on nearly any worthwhile topic, or even indirectly referencing into those NASA/Apollo moderated to death alternatives such as "uplink.space.com" and of their all knowing damage control from "apollohoax.com", is nicely provided by the previously named ARCHIMEDES Institute that had once been directed by Lawrence D. Roberts (now somewhat missing in action), having been recently killed off by way of age and/or modern technology (URL/server upgrade) or perhaps by someone not exactly all that in favor of what I had previously posted, as this site as now become www.PERMANENT.com and, please do bother to checkout their extremely polite Permanent Discussion Forum, as it seems entirely focused upon existing space technology, of research and of morally acceptable development upon accomplishing obtainable exploration and otherwise offering a great deal into space law related matters, along with being sufficiently pro-NASA and thereby pro mainstrean status quo upon just about everything, though oddly remaining almost NASA mole free, as in at least so far it's been quite "civil". Perhaps that's because the owners and/or administrators of the original "Archimedes" site and of this revised site were not necessarily entirely pro-NASA enough, possibly knowing of things that the rest of the cloak and dagger gang back at Club NASA doesn't want to get out, so they've been leaving this mostly "space law" and "space enterprise" forum somewhat alone.

Obviously for each of the LSE sub-surface habitat zones, we'll soon be having ourselves some difficulty if expediting upon getting any portion of our underground lunar abode anywhere near to that 170ºC mantle, as that's supposedly situated 70 km below the surface, and that's way too freaking hot anyway. However, obtaining -700 m is certainly not something technologically out of the question, thus the near surface thermal attribute may eventually become worth getting ourselves down to this -700 m, whereas at this comfort zone may in fact become rather cozy, especially if we converted some of that lunar basalt into R-1024/m insulation, plus there's certainly another benefit at that depth, as we could safely accommodate 1 bar pressure without fear of ever busting a seam, nor thereby losing that valuable containment of O2 due to excessive leakage.

Obviously 20% O2 @1 bar would be just like home sweet home, although perhaps 10% O2 should be worth getting used to, as foremost on behalf of improved fire safety as well as conserving upon the sheer value of all that O2, that could otherwise be conserved for another rainy day, sort of speak. If we're talking about sustaining something less than one Bar pressure (14.7 psi), chances are that we'd have to remain at 25+%, or even 50% O2 at the environment of 5 psi, whereas much less than 5 psi seems unadvisable.

Some interesting other observations provided by the same "infoplease" data-bank of knowledge as above.

"The smooth floors of the maria, varying from flat to gently undulating, are covered by a thin layer of powdered rock that darkens them and accounts for the moon's low albedo (only 7% of the incident sunlight is reflected back, the rest being absorbed)."

BTW folks and all of you snookered taxpayers;   as yet another point of visual reference, that 7% index is darn near soot black (perhaps somewhat new asphalt if you like). Unfortunately, absolutely none of which was ever captured by a single Apollo surface acquired image. The reported lunar average of 11% reflective index was also quite oddly never recorded upon by a single image acquired by any of those Apollo missions, though a great number of their images seem to nicely portray the lunar landscape as nearly 55%, with darn few items offering even lunar substances anywhere close to 25%. I guess that Sea of Tranquility as well as all other lander sites were actually lunar retro-reflective or white-out zones. Though thankfully, and/or perhaps rather oddly, there was darn little if any secondary radiation potential and, somehow otherwise their locations were such to be shielding those moon suit walking fools from all the ongoing dust-bunny impacts/m2/day, plus raw solar radiation impact, that which was not only physically toasty hot but also at least instantaneously -150ºC in the shade, all of which coming off a rather maximum solar phase (that's sort of like naked folks surviving a radiation gauntlet, a worthy storm of pulsating activity between that of a solar maximum and minimum, as surviving entirely unaffected at that).

As above, I've discovered there are some if not many other independent lunar experts suggesting that the lunar core may offer sufficient thermal reserves to more than melt trapped lunar ice, thus the nighttime lunar sub-surfce is most certainly a whole lot warmer than -153ºC. I'm thinking that perhaps at -7 km we're looking at a worst possible case of a relatively cozy -24ºC (if not a whole lot warmer), in which case there's no longer all that much cold to have to deal with and, most certainly little if any cosmic radiation, though I understand the lunar mantle and of its core are presently speculated as being roughly twice as radioactive as Earth's, thus a surrounding basalt crust might equally represent twice as much background radiation as Earth, along with pockets of highly concentrated radiation that's worthy of being mined.

In fact, after checking around a little more, going by some respectable folks like D. Holmes, specifically on the subject of lunar soil temperature, whereas his qualifiers places the crust of perhaps -7 km being a relatively constant 273K, that's even 24C better off than my conservative guestimate, as his figure is near OC, which means that at perhaps -700 m (nighttime) we might conceivably be more likely at -20C than not, though after extended daytime thermal penetration, even that could eventually rise back up to 0C prior to lunar nightfall. While others quoting from their Apolllo bible are suggesting that the crust that's merely 2 meter below the surface (daytime) was offering 256K or -17C. Obviously these two folks use somewhat entirely different resources and/or laws of physics, though either way those are certainly good for go figures, that'll more than become survivable once some of that R33/inch basalt insulation is applied.

For one very obvious noteworthy consideration (physics 101);   within nearly zero atmospheric pressure and far less geological pressure (a whole lot less) represents that a good number of things would melt (such as ice) or otherwise remain liquified at much lower temperatures, that which certainly includes the likes of water. Just by moving lunar ice towards the daylight surface would certainly do the trick of melting and/or altogether evaporating said ice, thereby having to expend little direct artificial energy, though offering the melted ice as a rather valuable resource of all things H2O, as well as releasing upon any number of trapped gas (perhaps even He3) and of mineral substances.

By some accounts, there's supposedly a rather significant offset of lunar crust thickness, whereas the near side is offering as little as 60 km and the farside being 100 km. Thus there must still remain a degree of internal tidal forces associated with whatever core fluids, especially as for creating that much crust distribution offset from such extreme thermal cycles, those caused by the forces of solar energy influx and of Earth tidal gravity fluctuations is certainly worth something in terms of creating and/or sustaining core thermal energy.

Here's yet another topic on "Lunar Volcanism", worth a look-see:

Of course, we always have those supposed first hand Apollo ruse tactics to rely upon, even though on a great many specifics there were essentially "No comments by crew", as well as those efforts and even of their instruments subsequently providing essentially insufficient if not entirely inadequate raw data, the sorts of impudent data that could just as easily have been obtained if it were issued by relatively crude robotic deployments, whereas by all means we seem to have acquired much, though oddly of data that's created more questions than answers.

Of further course, if you're one of those devout anti-everything sorts of individuals (though strangely borg like positive about absolutely everything other that's NASA), then there's probably no worth whatsoever in lunar ice, nor of melting any of it, as well as no worth in whatever radioactive elements that can be processed out of lunar basalt. In fact, as long as you're being Mr. Negative about absolutely everything, as such I've got to offer, there's quite possibly no values whatsoever in our accomplishing anything lunar, even if it's Earth science related, especially of accommodating the LSE (period!), whereas I'll suppose that of doing Mars and of vastly more distant places is a sure bet by your arrogant standards, of which I suppose we'll be needing those spendy ESEs or else.

Sorry again if I'm being my informative self, remaining hopelessly optimistic by using reasonable science, along with those universal laws of physics to help explain how I'm more likely right than not, as well as uncovering how so much of the NASA past has been sheer bogus horsepucky that's still being perpetrated upon humanity. Other than all that, I'm actually doing great at deflecting all the incoming flak and, of doing my best at returning those warm and fuzzy favors.

Of course, since all there is are those sorts of NASA apollohoax.com borgs claiming that working the lunar surface in broad/raw sunlight is merely a somewhat testy walk in the park, whereas their incest methods of dog-wagging and subsequent damage-control has consistantly been to orchestrate via email account trashings and/or by way of bashing any contrary notions to death, like that my research has attracted (I know this is fact because of receiving such intentional virus infected memos). If you'd like to convey something outside of this space toilet cesspool arena, such as reply about something other than my plugged email, go into the likes of GOOGLE or even Uplink.Space.Com and post whatever, include within the subject line "Brad Guth" or perhaps "bradguth-email" or "guthvenus" and I'll probably find you, or simply fax: 1-253-8575318 or you might even call: 1-253-8576061 as for making other sorts of communication arrangements.

Other LSE UPDATES, and there's certainly going to be lots more to come:

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of recent UPDATES)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000/2004 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: October 06, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com