Second reply to critics of my Science Vision report about living o

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

Ed

--- "bmaillists@...

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

On Fri Apr 13 9:21 , GARY ANSORGE sent:

-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.

GAry 7

>
> > 1) You say I talk
> > nonsense by saying that leakage is a function of
> pressure ratio.
>
> No, I say you talk nonsense by saying that any leak
> in a spacesuit or
> spacecraft is lethal, because the leaking will be
> "infinite". This is
> clearly not true; it takes tens of seconds to
> minutes for the air to
> leak out of even a small spacecraft. For a space
> habitat it would take
> hours or days.
>
> > 2) I agree that none of the Moon landings were
> faked - where did I
> > state that? I only talked about certain
> TV-presentations.
>
> Yes, you said that TV presentations (filmed in a
> "studio" as I recall)
> were passed off as the real thing. This is
> nonsense. There was no
> faked footage of any lunar activities ever passed
> off as the real
> thing. Perhaps you're back-pedaling from your
> earlier position on
> this? That would be some progress, at least.
>
> > 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?
>
> "Most of them [artist-designers] assume that there
> is plenty of solar
> energy available on the Moon's surface. Surely true
> at day time, but
> night and day on the Moon last 14 earth-days each -
> no solar power
> available during two weeks!"
>
> > 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?
>
> To suppose that you're the only one who knows this
> is nonsense, yes.
> It really is hubris in the extreme degree to suppose
> that seasoned
> engineers who have spent years working on designs
> for lunar settlements
> -- many of whom have also built real, working space
> hardware -- would
> be ignorant of such things.
>
> > 4) A to cooling radiators, missing in all SciFi
> designs of artist
> > -designers (but not where you mentioned)
>
> I mentioned only two that I was able to find in a
> few minutes with a
> casual search. I am quite certain that you will
> find them in ANY
> detailed design.
>
> Perhaps you can define "SciFi designs" to mean only
> such weak science
> fiction as to ignore such details; movies like
> "Armageddon" where
> asteroids have 1G gravity (among numerous other
> blunders). But I don't
> see the point in such a comparison with such trash,
> that nobody
> mistakes for serious engineering work. And there
> has been a LOT of
> serious engineering work before you started
> attempting it, so it is
> silly to say that you are the first to think of
> these things.
>
> > 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.
>
> We will indeed be building them on the Moon, within
> a couple decades
> (maybe sooner if Bigelow's business goes as
> planned). Yes, it's an
> important issue, and one that has been well studied.
>
> > 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.
>
> I ignored that part because it wasn't completely
> ridiculous, and I had
> plenty of ridiculous things to pick on. I suspect
> it won't work, when
> we examine it in detail, but it's not ludicrous on
> the surface.
> Perhaps we should start a separate thread on just
> that subject.
>
> > 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."
>
> Good point; I had skimmed too quickly and missed
> that. So we'd need
> some other analysis to deal with a thicker
> atmosphere. Probably
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002iaf..confE.230R>
> contains such an
> analysis.
>
> > 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?
>
> If there is substantial nitrogen on the Moon
> somewhere, it must be
> buried or otherwise hidden from the spectroscopic
> measurements taken of
> almost the entire lunar surface.
>
> > It isn't that important either, just a liveable
> atmosphere
> > of whatever composition could be formed.
>
> But what would it be? You need some buffer gas; we
> can't live in pure
> oxygen. Unfortunately noble gases (which make good
> buffers) don't tend
> to stick around on the Moon.
>
> > 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!
>
> Bombs exploding are really no different from an
> impact; in both cases
> we are suddenly releasing a large amount of energy
> in a confined area.
> In addition, regolith has been studied at great
> length. It is not
> flammable. It's like crushed, dessicated cement.
> You'd have as much
>

The fish are biting.
Marketing.