Re: Terraforming Venus will be easier

Here's a little feedback from: Jay Windley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun.  They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against
them. The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably
lower energy and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are
minimal."

Fortunately, I never specified upon any specific "high-energy cosmic
rays", just pointing out that our sun is certainly capable of tossing
out its fair share of far worse things than visible photons plus IR
worth of BTUs and of those nasty UVs. Obviously a supernova is worth a
thousand fold in terms of being nasty, thereby from the far off
generated galactic influx must offer a measurable degree of such, and
of the secondary radiation given off by all that infamous clumping
lunar dirt should become a fairly darn good indicator.

Your assertions or premise that of not only lacking an atmosphere, but
also without a Van Allen buffer zone is not such a bad thing if you're
out and about on the lunar surface, seems somewhat risky if not
downright lethal. I might come into understanding that if we're
referring to an earthshine illuminated lunar surface, but not so far
if that's a fully solar illuminated environment, while wearing a moon
suit because, we're not talking about avoiding a 270 nm UV sun burn.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of solar radiation that
becomes hard X-Ray class.

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun"

Does that happen to include the likes of the last couple of weeks of
solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This is somewhat like getting a grasp upon the applied energy (thrust)
involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what you've just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA  http://guthvenus.tripod.com