# 5237 byRavenart@... on March 25, 2004, 3:18 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
In a message dated 3/25/04 9:33:32 AM, mikecombs@... writes:
Earth orbit might become possible before the first families are settling
on Mars. >>
Why not build an Island One and then sent it to Mars orbit as a base for
study and colonization?
Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune
Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!
# 5238 bydante.feditech@... on March 25, 2004, 3:41 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Ravenart@... [mailto:Ravenart@...]
> Why not build an Island One and then sent it to Mars orbit as
> a base for study and colonization?
ANTIcarrot.
Or, you know, we could just, like, invent warp-drive.
# 5239 bymikecombs@... on March 25, 2004, 3:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: ANTIcarrot [mailto:dante.feditech@ntlworld.com]
> > Why not build an Island One and then sent it to Mars orbit as
> > a base for study and colonization?
>
> A modified Island-One could be sent there, but it might be cheeper to
send the factory and use local materials.
That's a good point. When you think about it, it's a darned shame Earth
doesn't have a Deimos-like satellite within spitting distance of GEO.
We'd probably have SPS from space resources already.
Oh well, one shouldn't complain. It could be worse. We could be
without the moon we do have.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 5240 bytango_dancer@... on March 25, 2004, 4:16 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> Earth doesn't have a Deimos-like satellite within spitting
> distance of GEO. We'd probably have SPS from space resources
> already.
While most of us would sanction the consumption of a small moonlet,
the Gaians would go ballistic at the destruction of Mother Nature's
gift to us. To transform a *natural* moonlet into a O'Neill Habitat
monstrosity would get them all riled up.
TangoMan
# 5241 bystemarie@... on March 25, 2004, 5:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hmmm, take out the move "The Time Machine" and see what Mr Wells think
may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much...
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:16 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> That's a good point. When you think about it, it's a darned shame
> Earth doesn't have a Deimos-like satellite within spitting
> distance of GEO. We'd probably have SPS from space resources
> already.
While most of us would sanction the consumption of a small moonlet,
the Gaians would go ballistic at the destruction of Mother Nature's
gift to us. To transform a *natural* moonlet into a O'Neill Habitat
monstrosity would get them all riled up.
TangoMan
# 5242 byRavenart@... on March 25, 2004, 5:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
In a message dated 3/25/04 11:19:28 AM, tango_dancer@... writes:
the Gaians would go ballistic at the destruction of Mother Nature's
gift to us. To transform a *natural* moonlet into a O'Neill Habitat
monstrosity would get them all riled up.
TangoMan >>
I will do with them same way I deal with the Mormons at my door, I ignore
them.
Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune
Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!
# 5243 bytango_dancer@... on March 25, 2004, 6:06 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Karell Ste-Marie"
wrote:
> Hmmm, take out the move "The Time Machine" and see what Mr Wells
think
> may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much...
>
> Karell Ste-Marie
> C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
future and read this Democratic analysis:
TangoMan
# 5244 bylucio@... on March 25, 2004, 7:17 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Em Qui 25 Mar 2004 14:56, Karell Ste-Marie escreveu:
> Hmmm, take out the move "The Time Machine" and see what Mr Wells think
> may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much...
(...)
never imagined by H.G. Wells. In the book, civilization decayed in a gradual
way over the 800,000 years period.
Second, although I liked the movie (and the rest of the group will probably
burn me at the stake because of that :-), it is as scientifically sound as a
Superfriends cartoon. The energies required to move the Moon are so big that
we would probably need a Dyson sphere or systematic cometary bombardment to
do that - over a timespan of centuries. Nuking the Moon (like in the movie),
even with all our nuke stockpile, would do nothing except create an
unimpressive additional crater. (As a comparison, the impacts that created
the larger craters and presumably some of the Maria were zillions of times
intenser and the Moon kept its orbit.)
# 5245 byspider_boris@... on March 25, 2004, 9:57 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
>
> > That's a good point. When you think about it, it's a darned
shame
> > Earth doesn't have a Deimos-like satellite within
spitting
> > distance of GEO. We'd probably have SPS from space
resources
> > already.
>
> While most of us would sanction the consumption of a small
moonlet,
> the Gaians would go ballistic at the destruction of Mother
Nature's
> gift to us. To transform a *natural* moonlet into a O'Neill
Habitat
> monstrosity would get them all riled up.
>
> TangoMan
Earth does acquire moonlets from time to time... IIRC last year
there was one in a strange horseshoe-shaped orbit going from L4 to
L1 to L5.
Ed
# 5246 byRavenart@... on March 25, 2004, 11:53 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
In a message dated 3/25/04 12:58:08 PM, stemarie@... writes:
may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much... >>
Even if it break up, it would still make for thousands of new homes.
Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@...
www.ravenartstudio.com
The more you love, the more you can love-and the more intensely you love.
Nor is there any limit on how many you can love.
If a person had time enough, he could love all of the majority who are decent
and just.
-Robert A. Heinlein (Time Enough For Love)
"Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total
obliteration." -- Dune
Freedom, Immortality, and the Stars!
# 5247 bystemarie@... on March 26, 2004, 2:04 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I can't agree with that statement about a single nuke not being able to destroy the moon, there are too many factors that play into the equation. Of course if you hurl a nuke at the surface you are only going to have a big new crater on the surface. *but* if you drill down into the center of the moon send the nuke down there and seal up the hole then you are going to be in for a surprise.
Now, if you take that same fire craker and light it. But little variation you close you hand around it. Let's just say that you are going to have to get yourself a hook to replace the hand, nothing's going to be left.
Why? Allow me to explain:
It's the same principle that allows sound to travel farther in water (and you can hear very faint ones as well) when you are in an environment that has very dense molecules (and high pressure) then the "ripple effect" is going to be much stronger and the molecules which are closer to one-another will pump into each other much like when you throw a stone into water you can see the ripple, however throwing a stone next to someone's head will not cause then to feel any wind (unless it's really close).
Now, on the moon you are in a void - in a void there aren't a lot of molecules to move around, so your assessment of a surface detonation is bang on. However if you put the nuke in a closed environment the force will have nowhere to go, it will *create* the minimum space that it needs therefore to the very least weakening the entire surroundings but also possible pushing everything out of the way as well.
Hope this makes sense,
No, I didn't borrow the theory from Armageddon (movie) however I did use a part of their simplistic explannation, I just left he ketchup bottle out of it.
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho [mailto:lucio@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:14 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
Em Qui 25 Mar 2004 14:56, Karell Ste-Marie escreveu:
> Hmmm, take out the move "The Time Machine" and see what Mr Wells think
> may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much...
(...)
First, that stuff about the "Fall of the Moon" in the newest movie version was
never imagined by H.G. Wells. In the book, civilization decayed in a gradual
way over the 800,000 years period.
Second, although I liked the movie (and the rest of the group will probably
burn me at the stake because of that :-), it is as scientifically sound as a
Superfriends cartoon. The energies required to move the Moon are so big that
we would probably need a Dyson sphere or systematic cometary bombardment to
do that - over a timespan of centuries. Nuking the Moon (like in the movie),
even with all our nuke stockpile, would do nothing except create an
unimpressive additional crater. (As a comparison, the impacts that created
the larger craters and presumably some of the Maria were zillions of times
intenser and the Moon kept its orbit.)
# 5248 bytango_dancer@... on March 26, 2004, 2:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Karell Ste-Marie"
wrote:
> able to destroy the moon, there are too many factors that play
> into the equation. Of course if you hurl a nuke at the surface you
> are only going to have a big new crater on the surface. *but* if
> you drill down into the center of the moon send the nuke down
> there and seal up the hole then you are going to be in for a
> surprise.
You won't be in for a big surprise for the very fact that you're
still alive and breathing. Almost all nuclear testing in the last
decades preceding the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty occured underground.
There are very interesting videos of the explosive effects as the
come to the surface. If simply detonating a buried H-Bomb was a
planet-busting event, we'd have all been history a long time ago.
A nuclear explosion is localized. We don't have planet buster bombs
yet. I think you're not fully grasping the scale of the moon.
TangoMan
# 5249 byapsmith@... on March 26, 2004, 2:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Mar 26, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Karell Ste-Marie wrote:
> No, I didn't borrow the theory from Armageddon (movie) however I did
> use a part of their simplistic explannation
Hollywood has trouble with basic physics. That movie violated so many
physical laws it probably reversed half the scientific understanding
millions of moviegoers acquired in school...
Here's a clue: up until a few years ago, every nuclear country tested
their weapons underground. Multi-megaton weapons, in some cases.
Thousands of tests. Did the earth fall apart? No. Not even any major
earthquakes as a result - the explosion melts and compacts the rocks
around it, sometimes leaving behind a cavern, but that's about it. And
the moon is very, very, very big, close enough in size to Earth that
our puny weapons wouldn't phase it one bit.
Arthur
# 5250 bystemarie@... on March 26, 2004, 2:38 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I may not understand nukes as well as I imply, but the basic principle
that a rock ripple effect in water is great that the ripple effect in
the air cannot be disputed. While the fact that a single nuke can't
shatter the moon can be accepted I still continue to think that I have
some truth in my statement.
assuming they don't dig a 6ft hole in the ground and drop the damn thing
and fill the hole up. Can someone provide me with some more evidence
than "hollywood's got it backwards"?
I will never argue that the power of a nuke resides more on its ability
to push matter (wind, water, etc) than the detonation itself. Based on
that I don't doubt that a nuke would be far less effective in space than
it would in an atmospheric environment.
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Arthur P. Smith [mailto:apsmith@...]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:33 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
On Mar 26, 2004, at 9:04 AM, Karell Ste-Marie wrote:
>
> No, I didn't borrow the theory from Armageddon (movie) however I did
> use a part of their simplistic explannation
Hollywood has trouble with basic physics. That movie violated so many
physical laws it probably reversed half the scientific understanding
millions of moviegoers acquired in school...
Here's a clue: up until a few years ago, every nuclear country tested
their weapons underground. Multi-megaton weapons, in some cases.
Thousands of tests. Did the earth fall apart? No. Not even any major
earthquakes as a result - the explosion melts and compacts the rocks
around it, sometimes leaving behind a cavern, but that's about it. And
the moon is very, very, very big, close enough in size to Earth that
our puny weapons wouldn't phase it one bit.
Arthur
# 5251 bytango_dancer@... on March 26, 2004, 2:45 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur P. Smith"
wrote:
> many physical laws it probably reversed half the scientific
> understanding millions of moviegoers acquired in school...
I almost spewed my coffee over my monitor reading this :) That movie
makes me cringe more than watching a season's worth of Star Trek.
They had the opportunity of working with NASA, had expert
consultants, and they botched it up so badly. I guess flash bang is
more marketable than a 2001: A Space Odyssey mileau. If Armegeddon
could only have included some Intelligent Design or Creationism in
it's plot points then instead of reversing half the scientific
understanding of the moviegoers it could have put the nails into the
coffin.
Did I mention I hate that movie more than Star Trek? Yeah, I guess I
did.
TangoMan
# 5252 byapsmith@... on March 26, 2004, 3:22 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Here's a site that reviews movies for their physics quality:
Armageddon was rated "XP" (worst rating) - here's the commentary:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/armageddon.html
Their review of "The Core", also rated "XP", is also relevant and
entertaining:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
Details of how underground nuclear testing was done are available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuke-testing.htm
I'll quote briefly:
Various methods are used for emplacing nuclear test devices so
that the ensuing explosion is contained. The most common method is to
emplace a test device at the bottom of a vertically drilled hole.
Another method is to emplace a test device within a tunnel that has
been mined horizontally to a location that is sufficiently deep to
provide containment.
[...]
The hole is then drilled using standard NTS big-hole drilling
techniques. A normal hole is from 1 to 3 meters (m) (48 to 120 inches
[in.]) diameter and from 213 to 762 meters (m) (600 to 2,500 feet [ft])
deep. During drilling, samples of drill cuttings are collected at 3-m
(10-ft) intervals, and rock cores are taken as required.
Arthur
# 5253 bystemarie@... on March 26, 2004, 3:26 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Arthur,
re-educate myself immediately ;-)
No B.S. - thanks
I'm a computer programmer with quite a few years of experience under my
belt, unfortunately the job also means that we don't usually get out
much. I just happen to enjoy scuba diving so I understand water a lot,
and drew my own conclusions.
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Arthur P. Smith [mailto:apsmith@...]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:22 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
Here's a site that reviews movies for their physics quality:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/
Armageddon was rated "XP" (worst rating) - here's the commentary:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/armageddon.html
Their review of "The Core", also rated "XP", is also relevant and
entertaining:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
Details of how underground nuclear testing was done are available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuke-testing.htm
I'll quote briefly:
Various methods are used for emplacing nuclear test devices so
that the ensuing explosion is contained. The most common method is to
emplace a test device at the bottom of a vertically drilled hole.
Another method is to emplace a test device within a tunnel that has
been mined horizontally to a location that is sufficiently deep to
provide containment.
[...]
The hole is then drilled using standard NTS big-hole drilling
techniques. A normal hole is from 1 to 3 meters (m) (48 to 120 inches
[in.]) diameter and from 213 to 762 meters (m) (600 to 2,500 feet [ft])
deep. During drilling, samples of drill cuttings are collected at 3-m
(10-ft) intervals, and rock cores are taken as required.
Arthur
# 5254 bystemarie@... on March 26, 2004, 4 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Arthur,
only was I right but I also laughed so hard my stomac hurts. Especially
with the Armageddon explanation
Bowling balls? LOL
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: Arthur P. Smith [mailto:apsmith@...]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:22 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
Here's a site that reviews movies for their physics quality:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/
Armageddon was rated "XP" (worst rating) - here's the commentary:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/armageddon.html
Their review of "The Core", also rated "XP", is also relevant and
entertaining:
http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/core.html
Details of how underground nuclear testing was done are available here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuke-testing.htm
I'll quote briefly:
Various methods are used for emplacing nuclear test devices so
that the ensuing explosion is contained. The most common method is to
emplace a test device at the bottom of a vertically drilled hole.
Another method is to emplace a test device within a tunnel that has
been mined horizontally to a location that is sufficiently deep to
provide containment.
[...]
The hole is then drilled using standard NTS big-hole drilling
techniques. A normal hole is from 1 to 3 meters (m) (48 to 120 inches
[in.]) diameter and from 213 to 762 meters (m) (600 to 2,500 feet [ft])
deep. During drilling, samples of drill cuttings are collected at 3-m
(10-ft) intervals, and rock cores are taken as required.
Arthur
# 5255 bydante.feditech@... on March 26, 2004, 6:09 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
> Did I mention I hate that movie more than Star Trek? Yeah, I guess I
> did.
"Oh and one more thing - none of us want to pay taxes again. Ever!"
It was not intended to be a terribly serious film. It was a comedy, with one of it's biggest targets being NASA's obsession with having things ready five years before the mission, and then screwing it up on the night. Witness the Hubble mirror and the metric/imperial mars probe. Or NASA's failure to design a reasonable successor to the space shuttle. Or the twenty year space station epic. Yes NASA has done a *lot* of good work, but they have a reputation for not seeing the wood for the trees.
And anyway, since when do we expect comedies to follow the rules of physics? Or do people on this list write letters of complaint when Homer Simpson juggles uranium rods and doesn't die of radiation sickness two days later?
ANTIcarrot.
# 5256 bytango_dancer@... on March 26, 2004, 6:13 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> of physics? Or do people on this list write letters of complaint
> when Homer Simpson juggles uranium rods and doesn't die of
> radiation sickness two days later?
Because we all know that Homer is a cartoon. Cartoons can do
anything - we've all seen their powers from watching Roger Rabbit.
LOL
TangoMan
# 5257 bystemarie@... on March 26, 2004, 7:27 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Hmmm,
X-Men the movie it's not cool? I think the carrot is making a good
point, entertainment is not really meant to be education (how I miss
Beakman's World) - and besides, if it costs them 50000000 to make a
movie like the core (wild guess on the figure there), imagine how much
money it would cost them to have the actors describe something
scientifically correct while still speaking plain english!
I also though that "The Core" was very far fetched, but then again, I
think I'm going to submit a request to this "physics-movie" review site
that they perhaps analyze a few looney tunes cartoons.
The only difference between a movie with people and cartoons is that
when it comes time to see something the movie with people uses someone
with a mouse to give a picture and the cartoon uses someone with a
pen...
Unless you really though that superman was flying... Eh, where's
superman in their list?
Excellent point Mr Carrot,
Karell Ste-Marie
C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:14 PM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> And anyway, since when do we expect comedies to follow the rules
> of physics? Or do people on this list write letters of complaint
> when Homer Simpson juggles uranium rods and doesn't die of
> radiation sickness two days later?
Because we all know that Homer is a cartoon. Cartoons can do
anything - we've all seen their powers from watching Roger Rabbit.
LOL
TangoMan
# 5258 byryjaz@... on March 26, 2004, 10:07 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
speaking of bad physics in movies, my favorite
debunking website is:
i like his rating system!
Ryan Z
--- "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
# 5259 bydante.feditech@... on March 26, 2004, 10:55 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Ryan Z [mailto:ryjaz@...]
> speaking of bad physics in movies, my favorite
> debunking website is:
> http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/
For ID4 they arbitarily declare that the BMG the aliens use *must* be an anti-matter cannon of some sort. And then complain when later scenes in the film don't accomadate their theory. It's like pointing at a jet and claiming it's bad physics because it doesn't have a propellor at the front. This is poor behaviour from someone claiming to stand up for science.
ANTIcarrot.
# 5260 bylucio@... on March 29, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Em Sex 26 Mar 2004 19:57, ANTIcarrot escreveu:
(...)
> It's a good idea, but tend to pick it's fights poorly. For instance the
> section that deals with AI claims the film is 'dumb' (paraphrased) because
> the film says the robots need no resources - and are therefore perpetual
> motion machines. Making such an extrapolation from one line of dialouge is
> dumb - and that's not paraphrased. It's much more likely the phrase refers
> to not needing food, time off, clothes, consumer luxuaries, and other
> 'resources' - not stuff like electricity.
instance, he says that David is a moto continuum and so he was still
functioning after 2,000 years, but to me it seemed that David was somehow
recharged (using magnetic induction?) by the futurist robot that opens the
chopper. (David is frozen like a statue and he only awakes after the futurist
robot uses "imposition of hands" of a sort.) Also, there are probably several
ways for Earth to freeze quite quickly - there are fossil records of pretty
quick (decades) large (many degrees) temperature fluctuations on Earth;
probably no need of an "axial tilt that put New York in the North Pole", like
theorized in the article.
> For ID4 they arbitarily declare that the BMG the aliens use *must* be an
> anti-matter cannon of some sort. And then complain when later scenes in the
> film don't accomadate their theory. It's like pointing at a jet and
> claiming it's bad physics because it doesn't have a propellor at the front.
> This is poor behaviour from someone claiming to stand up for science.
(...)
What does BMG stands for?
# 5261 byvolatilis_leo@... on March 30, 2004, 8:22 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I really, really hope that these people are just trying to be funny, or that
they don't vote. Where in the heck do they come up with this stuff? Numerous
contradictions in the same paragraph, wacky conspiracy theories, etc...
Thanks for 'illuminating' me, Tango.
>From: "victoriatangoman"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars and Island One
>Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:05:37 -0000
>
>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Karell Ste-Marie"
> wrote:
> > Hmmm, take out the move "The Time Machine" and see what Mr Wells
>think
> > may happen to the/a moon when you drill it out too much...
> >
> > Karell Ste-Marie
> > C.I.O. - BrainBank Inc.
>
>Maybe Mr. Wells actually got into the Time Machine, came to the
>future and read this Democratic analysis:
>
>TangoMan
>
All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by
ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn