Difference between revisions of "User talk:75.73.69.17"
(Created page with "Unfortunately the new LRO data makes the approach shown in this architecture unlikely to address the radiation exposure problem sufficiently. I am working on a radical solution ...") |
(talk) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Tom Riley | Tom Riley | ||
TomRiley@WoodwareDesigns.com | TomRiley@WoodwareDesigns.com | ||
| + | <small>The above comment was posted by:</small> [[User:Jriley|Jriley]] 22:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Hi Jriley, | ||
| + | :Maybe we have a new contributor in user:75.73.69.17. I think the Architecture as Mole Hills is sound with respect to radiation shielding if the regolith covering referred to in the text is 5 meters or more thick. The thickness is specified as 7 meters, so it should be enough. The article could use some technical updating as could many articles. - [[User:Farred|Farred]] 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:14, 22 July 2012
Unfortunately the new LRO data makes the approach shown in this architecture unlikely to address the radiation exposure problem sufficiently. I am working on a radical solution but it is for a Mars mission. These arguments are rather long and I am currently preparing a related e-book. Please e-mail me if you are interested in somewhat length arguments in this area.
Tom Riley TomRiley@WoodwareDesigns.com The above comment was posted by: Jriley 22:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Jriley,
- Maybe we have a new contributor in user:75.73.69.17. I think the Architecture as Mole Hills is sound with respect to radiation shielding if the regolith covering referred to in the text is 5 meters or more thick. The thickness is specified as 7 meters, so it should be enough. The article could use some technical updating as could many articles. - Farred 01:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
