Thanks Joe for being more specific this time. Though I can appreciate some of your critics, your basic attitude is reading my writings the way a certain potentate would read the Bible. This you show most clearly by ignoring the fact that I repeatedly talk against the ideas of artist-designers, not engineers, scientists etc, as you claim I do. Of course I am not the first one to think of cooling problems and other physical conditions, but the artist-designers ignore it in their SciFi designs and you ignore that I point this out - intentionally? Nevertheless, you have made very clear to me that everything that can be misinterpreted, WILL be misinterpreted and thus I will have to reformulate most of my present text. I am therefore grateful for your detailed criticism this time, showing where I have to be more clear. I think I will add a page on basic physics and mechanics as well, in the hope it will prevent the worst of misunderstandings. Only being human myself, I wrongly assumed that what is obvious for me, would be that for others also and I just have to point it out. Unfortunately nothing seems to be "obvious", not even that water boils at 100 C (212 F). Someone might correctly oppose you can climb a mountain and boil water at a lower temperature there (or at a higher temperature in a pressure-cooker). Another handicap of mine seems to be that I'm not a native speaker of English. With "being out of the question" I meant - one wouldn't dare to - , or more in general, - one wouldn't want to - , but you say that a native speaker reads it as "impossible", or is that only you? I would like to hear some comments from other native speakers on that one (I actually DO want to learn, you know). As to your specific points of criticism, the following: 1) You say I talk nonsense by saying that leakage is a function of pressure ratio. On the page you refer to:
http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/higgins.html> please look at formulas 4, 5 and 6 and you will see the factor pi/pf, which actually is pressure ratio! Do you see anywhere the factor (pi - pf ), being pressure difference? You ARE a 'potentate' my dear! 2) I agree that none of the Moon landings were faked - where did I state that? I only talked about certain TV-presentations. I never questioned the fact that the moon landings were real. You're the 'potentate' again! 3) Where did I write that nobody else has realized that the Moon has a 14-day night, which indeed would be a rediculous statement? Really, you're putting words in my mouth, or is this the language problem again? However, those claiming solar energy to be a main energy source on the Moon, do ignore the long night, during which you can't collect solar power and then the energy storage problem comes in - that I did write. Now I mention it. Apart from the fact that it takes very much energy to liquefy Oxygen and Hydrogen gas for storage purposes, especially Hydrogen is a very tricky material to handle and store - it even leaks through most metals. Moreover, the hydrolysis of water has a typical efficiency of 60% ( 40% of the applied electrical energy develops as heat....that must be cooled off) Also fuel cells produce a lot of heat, that must be cooled off. Of course, as I'm "the only one who knows this", that's another nonsense statement of mine, yes? 4) A to cooling radiators, missing in all SciFi designs of artist-designers (but not where you mentioned) I pointed out the size problem - huge cooling areas are needed. On paper it works allright, but you try to build that on the Moon in the dust and under vacuum conditions, shielded off from solar radiation as well. 5) As to my design of cooling towers having inadequate radiation shielding, you seem not to have observed that these towers consists of many shielding rings. These towers radiate heat straight upwards from the bottom. It is far easier and a lot safer in operation to build many smaller cooling towers, than one huge flat area, as you propose. Uhm, that's obvious to me, but that was just the problem, isn't it? Oh, do I have a lot to reformulate and to add in my book! (or just forget about it all together - what public am I writing for, I wonder?) 6) As to a Moon atmosphere, here you really have a realistic point. Indeed, I'm speculating here, based on the the wish being the father of the thought, I admit that. This I have also mentioned in my book and therefore called it an "intermezzo", just a thought, not a fact. I therefore also wrote that we simply have to try it out, because there is no other way to be sure. However, on the page you refer to:
http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/DegradeLunarVacuum.html>, where it says that the atmospheric escape lifetime for heavier elements is 100 days, it also says at the end ot that same paragraph:
"....this mechanism becomes ineffective if the atmosphere is thick, however, the gas input rate (on the order of 250,000 tons/month) required to reach such a level, is considerably higher than what is likely to be produced in any near-term industrial facility." Quite true as to industrial facilities, but if my theory on the chain-reacting regolith would be true, then these 250.000 tons/month could be easily reached, perhaps even per day, or hour - who can know how fast the reaction would go? You may be right on the Nitrogen, that there is only a little, but there are other gases that may constitute a liveable atmosphere, as long as they are not toxic. Although the a.m. page says that there is almost no Nitrogen on the Moon, how can we know from just a few landing sites - there may be other locations that are rich in Nitrogen? It isn't that important either, just a liveable atmosphere of whatever composition could be formed. The escape lifetime seems to vary with the thickness of an atmophere, something I didn't know before, but it explains how very hot Venus can hold the very thick atmosphere it has - I'm still hopeful on a Moon atmosphere. But then, do we want it? Perhaps not. Finally, as to your kiloton impacts, do they release the required ignition temperature in one location, or the impact energy just preads out very rapidly? I already pointed out in my book that a nuclear explosion above the dust may not do, because of the energy dispersing too fast in the vacuum environment, or blasting the dust away, before it can react. If so, a metor impact surely would not be enough either, unless it is such a big one, that it creates a lake of molten lava and such big impacts seem to have stopped a few billion years ago....after and during which most of the present regolith became formed. Nevertheless and not in the least because of prof. Taylor's experiment in his microwave oven, I still see regolith as a potential fuel, that could be used under controlled conditions...or sets the whole Moon on fire in case of an uncontrolled event, like a spacecraft crashing and its fuel exploding on the surface? Drop a bomb first, to make sure we're safe there, I would say! However and unless I get some more positive reactions, I rather may write a pure SciFi book, with ion-engine driven space ships, reaching the Moon within a few hours from Earth and large glass-cupola cities on huge concrete floors and star ships that through hyperspace travel in seconds across the galaxy, etc, etc, totally freed from any physical and engineering limitations, that would spoil the "fun" - that you would love to read about, wouldn't you? Just that I couldn't do it - I'm a physicist-engineer. Oh yes, that brings me on your quality argument of SSI list members. I'm a double graduated engineer in electrics and mechanics, worked before as a microwave specialist in radar and missile systems (airforce), later, after my education in mechanics, became profesionally specialized in refrigeration technology, backed up further with own studies on thermodynamics and presently working with developing new energy conversion systems. Is that quality enough to be a member of the SSI list, I wonder, or are you guys all Ph.D.'s in something? Niclas PS: Sheesh, I wasted far longer than half an hour on this one....
Finding fabulous fares is fun.

> 1) You say I talk
> nonsense by saying that leakage is a function of pressure ratio.

-Joe, why do we NEED a buffer gas? The partial
pressure of O2 at sea level is about 2.7 PSI. Is there
a purely physiological reason we can't survive in
comfort at that pressure of pure O2? I expect there
would be esthetic reasons, such as, reduced ability to
maintain body temp. in a low pressure environment, or
depression of sound intensity but I am unfamiliar with
any purely physical reason we couldn't survive
breathing pure O2 at 2.7 PSI. Please clarify.

> -Joe, why do we NEED a buffer gas?

Doesn't mixing pure O2 with possible Sparks come under the heading of "Very Bad Thing" ?
B.

It was indeed a Very Bad Thing for the Apollo 1
astronauts.

> It was indeed a Very Bad Thing for the Apollo 1
> astronauts.

I believe the main reason to raise the pressure to 1 atmosphere is that
it reduces the evaporation rate of water - at 2.7 PSI water boils at
about 70 degrees C instead of 100 degrees. At low pressure that means
more water loss from your body - you will get more easily dehydrated and
chilled. People at high altitudes experience this on Earth, though there
the problem is exacerbated by hyperventilation due to the lowered oxygen
pressure.