The colorful elements of our moon and otherwise Venus, each have their issues

[Brad Guth]

What's honestly not to like about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon, plus an extremely nearby planet like Venus?

Even dysfunctional 5th graders can view-in and contribute on behalf of this one small radar topography mapped area of what "GuthVenus" has to offer, by simply using their smart phones, tablets and you-name-it computers along with most any browser or Photozoom. Then they can start asking their teachers why our NASA is still acting so indifferent by keeping their media goons and FUD-masters busy at topic/author stalking and trashing anyone taking any interest in whatever GuthVenus or that of our moon has to offer.

Kids could also ask the same of their parents, except most parents are just as scared to death of our government and wouldn't dare so much as even look at whatever a nearby planet like Venus has to offer. If pushed on this issue, most parents would have to put their kids up for adoption, rather than ever having to admit how mainstream snookered and dumbfounded they actually are.

Don't hold your breath on this one, kids. Your teachers, peers, parents and grandparents are absolutely scared to death of going up against the mainstream status quo, especially when it also points out how easily snookered and dumbfounded they've been all along, as even complicit in the act of fooling everyone including themselves.

Besides what Venus has to offer (just about everything imaginable), it seems our moon isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert or even nearly as reflective as our NASA/Apollo era has always suggested to us, and its innards could be yet another treasure trove of good stuff including mineral brines and easy access to numerous common and rare elements, while everyone involved with TBMs and exploitation remains perfectly failsafe and cozy. In other words, where's the down side?

Amateurs as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can do so much better than any of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.
http://www.astronomie.be/christophe.behaegel/Moon%20in%20Color/index.html
As once again we get to see for ourselves, with proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image work, using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have accomplished decades ago and especially from their spendy LROC. None the less, once again we get a full visual spectrum look-see at what seems to depict a treasure trove of common and rare elements.

Go figure, and no wonder China has become focused upon exploiting it first.

There's not much new under the sun, unless you'd care to actually look at a wee bit of what the extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer, as hardly any significant sunlight is getting through to its geodynamically active surface, and especially noteworthy of the GuthVenus site offering an extremely mountainous and canyon terrain, as perhaps then you'll also notice that this one extremely nearby planet is simply like no other planet or moon by way of offering this rather substantial kind of topography along with a rather large structured scale and rational community of what interprets as considerable infrastructure, that had been created by some kind of a sufficiently advanced intelligence, or that of at least by something smarter than a typical 5th grader because, our terrestrial 5th graders as having been mostly indoctrinated instead of educated are pretty much becoming our future lost cause generation of everyone left behind, that can no longer think for itself.

Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/2009/07/brad-guth-index.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/"Guth Venus",GuthVenus

[Brad Guth]

Why would our NASA and of those contracted have intentionally PhotoShop compromised this next one, by constructing yet another official image as their usual media eyecandy, of special hype and infomercial spin for us?
http://news.discovery.com/space/moon-orbiter-captures-stunning-21st-century-earthrise-140508.htm

I mean to say; who the hell cares what a colorful Earth looks like from the wide-angle FOV via our spendy LROC that's only offering us a monochromatic image of the moon, and especially if it's fully capable of turning on or rather by simply extracting their 7 color bands (including UV and IR) as for depicting those vibrant element hues and color depth of Earth as well as for anything else, as then why not allow those naturally deep element colors of our physically dark moon to ever show. What the hell are they still trying to hide, or exactly who are they intent upon fooling? (they're certainly not fooling China)

If boasting a dynamic range that's supposedly at least better than 5 db or f-stop advantage over Kodak film, and there's still not another star or planet in sight, even though having a dynamic range of 65536 DN levels which should have depicted a wide scope of surface mineral colors and those unavoidable fluorescent secondary/recoil photons due to the unfiltered UV that hits our naked and physically dark moon which is anything but monochromatic, and I do believe that I'm still being conservative about all of this.

"The cameras can record a tremendous dynamic range of lit and shadowed areas"

"The 32-bit values are four times the disk size of the finalized 8-bit (255 grey levels) representation most computers use to display greyscale images. The conversion process from 32-bit to 8-bit pixels results in saturation (group of pixels all with the maximum value of 255) in the brightest areas."

"Pixels are stored as 16-bit unsigned integers with the dynamic range of 0-65535. The
pixel values (radiometrically corrected and photometrically normalized) have been scaled
to fit in the 16-bit unsigned range"

The "16 bit unassigned range" means that the LROC DR can also further shift its DBs/f-stops up or down in order to suit the average from extremely bright to nearly pitch black(deeply shadowed), thereby further extending its active dynamic range, as compared to Kodak film that's limited as to roughly 10 db or 10 f-stops, whereas the LROC DR of 16 db can be software shifted perhaps another +/- 8 db for an active imager DR capability of 32 db, and it is not even limited as to a monochromatic imager, but those of seven distinct color bands.

"LROC consists of two Narrow Angle Cameras (NACs) to provide 0.5 meter-scale panchromatic images over a 5 km swath, a Wide Angle Camera (WAC) to provide images at a scale of 100 meters/pixel in seven color bands over a 60 km swath, and a Sequence and Compressor System (SCS) supporting data acquisition for both cameras."

So, what's with all of this mostly monochromatic crap and constant lack of any other planets or stars? (Venus isn't exactly dim or even all that little)

Just how likely was that of Sirius and of numerous other significantly visible stars as well as those much larger and brighter items of nearby planets as never getting into any LROC frame of view?

On the other hand, it's perfectly understandable as to why our Magellan mission of radar mapping Venus was entirely monochromatic, not that 99.9% of our best educated kids, young adults, parents and grandparents simply never had any clue as to what radar imaging can or cannot accomplish. In this case, we're talking of each and every generation of child being left behind, but that's somehow acceptable to our mainstream status quo that's obviously still color-blinded by their mutually perpetrated cold-war era, and in denial of their being in denial as well as most everything nondisclosure enforced to boot.

Other than the ESA Venus Express mission of assorted color coded images and a few others looking at its thick cloudy atmosphere (mostly from the outside though a few from the Russians surface probes gave us an inside view from the ground up), our only other images are those of radar scans that offered no colors or hues whatsoever. However surface density and its radar reflective nature of fairly high metallicity would suggest dark colors of mostly heavy metals and even acidic oxides that would likely respond to artificial UV illumination with an assortment of recoil/secondary photons of human visual colors. In other words, the raw surface of Venus could be extremely colorful once properly illuminated instead of by deeply cloud filtered and off-colored illumination.

[Brad Guth]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

The usual critics and naysayers of anything proposed as introduced from outside of our NASA mainstream authorized interpretations, as such will always be discredited as to whatever anyone else ever has to say. Strange how our public funding does that to the people we hire to advance and impress us, making them into a kind of all-knowing god that can never be revoked.

They(NASA and associates) call these amateir obtained lunar surface color images of our moon "false color", except there's actually nothing false about them because, no person had ever falsely added colors to the image, as in no differently than you or myself adjusting the color saturation on our HDTV up or down (from monochrome to vibrant fluorescent colors), whereas we are not falsely adding or subtracting any color that isn't already there to begin with, and this is exactly the same analogy as to what our NASA, JPL and even ASU do whenever they get to sell us on their cosmic eyecandy images of such striking cosmic colors that can be every bit a real as it gets (with the obvious exceptions of allowing those IR, UV and radio-microwave astronomy spectrums as given assigned colors), even though to our naked eye those very same FOV(field of view) images offer darn little if any perceptible colors, only because the level of available color photons are simply too dim for the naked eye to perceive.

With further respect to those surface colors of our physically dark and mostly naked moon, we are not talking about anyone as having introduced those colors as artificial or false UV, IR or radio waves of colors that are always invisible to the naked eye. Instead these surface element colors are simply all as found within the optical visual spectrum to begin with, except for their being a derivative extrapolated from a physically dark composite surface is what makes their raw visual saturation so minimal and otherwise seem as though monochromatic to the naked eye. However, as optically magnified and with the proper use of narrow bandpass optical filters and CCD imagers many times more sensitive than the human eye, as such easily accomplished with extended exposure time is what can greatly help to bring out those perfectly natural surface colors, with no special tricks nor having any false colors whatsoever introduced.

In other words, of what we get to see is simply of what we can naturally obtain from our physically dark moon that's always going to be anything except monochromatic, because if the moon was truly that of an inert monochrome item, whereas no amount of increased color saturations via optical filters or even as artificially enhanced saturation via computer editing (aka PhotoShop) will ever manage to colorize it, unless being intentionally and thereby artificially false colored to suit.

What is it about our NASA/Apollo era of authorized mainstream science that's always published as though its having been so colorblind and dynamic range dysfunctional to boot?

No doubt the hot and nasty surface of Venus also has raw elements of color, but only as easily detected by the visual spectrometry methods of using narrow bandpass filters and reassembling those as color sensitive layers for creating the natural composite of surface colors as merely enhanced (not false), so that scientific mineral interpretations can be accomplished. On the other hand, of incorporating IR and UV spectrums and even including their secondary/recoil photon colors, as such could be reasonably interpreted as false colors to the naked eye which couldn't normally perceive those spectrums.

Of course, even remote gamma spectrometry from orbit can easily identify and even greatly quantify as to what any given surface has to offer. A surface deployed gamma spectrometry survey can of course focus upon any given cm2, telling us exactly what's there and even to a depth of several meters in order to help quantify what each surface area has to offer regardless of the natural illumination or other environmental issues. Oddly we still have nothing on the lunar surface accomplishing this type of geological and metallicity survey, and of all the Apollo samples of mostly inert grayish bedrock of somewhat minimal density, there's simply no telling as to what common and rare elements our moon has to offer. It's almost as though we've never been there.

So, in spite of our NASA/Apollo monochrome and mostly inert era, what sort of surface elements are giving our amateur astronomy such colorful results?

[Brad Guth]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

The usual gauntlet of critics and naysayers of anything proposed as introduced from outside of their NASA mainstream authorized interpretations, as such will always be discredited as to getting pounced upon and ripped to shreds, as to trashing whatever anyone else ever has to say. Strange how our public funding does that to the people we hire to advance and impress us, making them into a kind of all-knowing god that can never be revoked.

They(NASA and associates) call these amateir obtained lunar surface color images of our moon "false color", except there's actually nothing false about them because, no person had ever falsely added colors to the image, as in no differently than you or myself adjusting the color saturation on our HDTV up or down (from monochrome to vibrant fluorescent colors), whereas we are not falsely adding or subtracting any color that isn't already there to begin with, and this is exactly the same analogy as to what our NASA, JPL and even ASU do whenever they get to sell us on their cosmic eyecandy images of such striking cosmic colors that can be every bit a real as it gets (with the obvious exceptions of allowing those IR, UV and radio-microwave astronomy spectrums as given assigned colors), even though to our naked eye those very same FOV(field of view) images offer darn little if any perceptible colors, only because the level of available color photons are simply too dim for the naked eye to perceive.

Of course, from any low orbit we cannot expect to accomplish time exposures via narrow bandpass filters, at least not of our Apollo era using low-speed Kodak color film. However, this has not been the case with advanced cameras and their extremely sensitive CCD imagers, though even those much older Kodak films can be digitally scanned and their colors amplified, but perhaps only valid if one actually wanted to learn of what that lunar surface was made of, or as having been receiving for the past 4+ billion years.

With further respect to those surface colors of our physically dark and mostly naked moon, we are not talking about anyone as having introduced those colors as artificial or false UV, IR or much less radio waves of colors that are always invisible to the naked eye. Instead these surface element colors are simply all as found within the optical visual spectrum to begin with, except for their being a derivative extrapolated from a physically dark composite surface is what makes their raw visual saturation so minimal and otherwise seem as though monochromatic to the naked eye. However, as optically magnified and with the proper use of narrow bandpass optical filters and CCD imagers many times more sensitive than the human eye, as such easily accomplished with extended exposure time is what can greatly help to bring out those perfectly natural surface colors, with no special tricks nor having any false colors whatsoever introduced.

[Brad Guth]

The truly colorful elements of our moon, and otherwise there's always Venus to pillage and plunder, whereas each have their good/bad issues (though none of which being technically insurmountable).

What's honestly not to like about exploiting our physically dark and paramagnetic moon (especially of its innards), plus that of an extremely nearby planet like Venus?

Even dysfunctional 5th graders can review and contribute on behalf of this one small radar topography mapped area of what "GuthVenus" has to offer, by simply using their smart phones, tablets and you-name-it computers along with most any browser or PhotoZoom. Then they can start asking their teachers why our NASA is still acting so indifferent by keeping their media goons and FUD-masters busy at topic/author stalking and trashing anyone taking any interest in whatever GuthVenus or that of our moon has to offer.

Was our Magellan mission of radar imaging the hot surface of Venus actually bogus or some kind of science ruse, and were all of our Apollo era wizards colorblind?

Was the Magellan mission data full or technical and assorted errors, and thus unreliable?

Kids could also ask the same of their parents, except most parents are just as scared to death of our government and wouldn't dare so much as even look at whatever a nearby planet like Venus has to offer. If pushed on this issue, most parents would have to put their kids up for adoption, rather than ever having to admit how mainstream snookered and dumbfounded they actually are.

Don't hold your breath on this one, kids. Your teachers, peers, parents and grandparents are absolutely scared to death of going up against the mainstream status quo, especially when it also points out how easily snookered and dumbfounded they've been all along, as even complicit in the act of fooling everyone including themselves.

Besides what Venus has to offer (just about everything imaginable), it seems our physically dark moon isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert or even nearly as reflective as our NASA/Apollo era has always suggested to us, and its innards could be yet another treasure trove of good stuff including mineral brines and easy access to numerous common and rare elements, while everyone involved with TBMs and exploitation remains perfectly failsafe and cozy. In other words, where's the down side?

Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/images/Moon/20111004_gasparri.jpg
http://www.astronomie.be/christophe.behaegel/Moon%20in%20Color/index.html
As once again we get to see for ourselves, with proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have accomplished as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely turned up, offers a look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements.

Go figure, and no wonder China has recently become focused upon exploiting it first. Of course they'll have to revolve their rover technology and stop using those PhotoShop modified and/or artificially constructed images, but then they've rather nicely demonstrated their perfection fly-by-rocket lander and its CCD imagers functioning at 400+ K, as performing a whole lot better than any of our stuff, so they seem to be in a very good position for their next lunar exploitation effort.

Compared to Mars, we still know practically nothing about the geodynamics and raw elements of our moon (not to mention surface deposits), and yet supposedly there's not much new under the sun unless you'd care to actually look at a wee bit of what the extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer, as hardly any significant sunlight is getting through to its geodynamically hot and still active surface, and especially noteworthy of the GuthVenus site offering an extremely mountainous and canyon terrain, as perhaps then you'll also notice that this one extremely nearby planet is simply like no other planet or moon by way of offering this rather substantial kind of topography along with a rather large structured scale and rational community of what easily interprets as considerable infrastructure, that had been created by some kind of a sufficiently advanced intelligence, or that of at least by something smarter than a typical 5th grader because, our terrestrial 5th graders as having been mostly mainstream indoctrinated instead of educated are pretty much becoming our future lost cause generation of essentially everyone left behind, that can no longer deductively think nor independently function for itself without their being spoon fed mainstream hype and eyecandy infomercial.

[Brad Guth]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

How wet are those innards of our moon?

http://www.rdmag.com/news/2014/06/new-evidence-oceans-deep-earth
This exact same analogy of geologically sequestered water should apply as for a significant cache of water within our moon.

After all, according to those of our NASA/Apollo era, our moon is made of nearly the exact same elements as Earth, except as offering a lot more accessible elements of great value on its physically dark and paramagnetic surface of basalt and carbonado worthy of 3.5 g/cm3.

Those natural surface mineral colors are not actually fake or having been PhotoShop added to the otherwise NASA/Apollo monochromatic moon that was mostly inert and hardly even the least bit physically dark nor dusty.

Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to accomplish so much better mineral fluorescent color geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL, and ASU has to offer, as even JAXA and our LROC mission have been totally color-blind and still as poorly dynamic range incapable as Kodak Film (so much so that they each must PhotoShop any color view of Earth along with their always monochromatic moon in the same frame of view(FOV), whereas any 5th grader can easily detect their ruse by simply replacing black with some other color or simply by using greater brightness of black more than does the trick.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pSYvqyzqGNI/maxresdefault.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/earthmoon_crop.png

[Brad Guth]

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

In addition to all the heavier elements as typically hard as well as mostly paramagnetic stuff that our moon has to offer, it seems our moon offers a treasure trove of a few diamagnetic elements plus numerous low density elements that can be easily mined and exploited (some of which like 3He/He3 are extremely valuable), or simply left for the natural process to sublime, vent and forever lose track of, especially the case when there is so little if any option of these lofty elements within such a hard and crystal dry environment of seldom if ever binding with most other elements.

Sodium = 3.818e-26 kg per Na atom

Moon 9r = 1564200000 cm = 1.6e28 cm3

1.6e28 * 16 = 2.56e29 atoms of sodium surrounding our moon.

2.56e29 * 3.818e-26 = 9.77e3 kg of sodium surrounding our moon


Solar wind blown tail = 900,000 km (9e10 cm) averaging 4r and 12/cm3

4r = 695200000 cm = 1.52e18 cm2

1.52e18 x 9e10 = 1.37e29 cm3

1.37e29 x 12 = 16.44e29 Na

16.44e29 x 3.818e-26 = 63e3 kg or 63 tonnes of sodium contained within that solar wind blown tail of sodium.

According to the best available science, there's a sodium/Na cloud worth 9 tonnes as surrounding our moon out to 9r and perhaps at least another 63 tonnes as trailing away from our moon, of sodium that has to be continually replenished.

The extremely hot daytime and hard vacuum of that lunar surface and of its mostly physically dark and paramagnetic basalt bedrock/crust, gives off its sodium element quite easily. No doubt that deep within the lunar crust, its sodium is still getting melted/boiled (as well as via the surface heat of day) and those vapors are made available as to eventually surface and escape into the surrounding hard vacuum of space.

A 9r cloud of sodium surrounds our moon, and if it were averaging perhaps as much as 32/cm3, whereas that greater cloud density represents perhaps 18 tonnes, plus it maintains yet another 900,000 km tapered tail of solar wind blown sodium averaging perhaps as great as 16/cm3 (84 tonnes). Anyone want to offer a swag as to how many million tonnes of sodium loss is required per billion years, or even per million years?

If our moon stopped subliming and venting its sodium(Na); how many months or years would it take the solar wind to blow those lofty 9 tonne remainders of Na away?

Of course, in addition to the ongoing loss of Na, there's also the ongoing loss of its hydrogen, helium and a few other lofty elements of insufficient atomic mass that are not exactly going to be all that insignificant when quantified over any long period of time. Assuming that moon is venting and/or subliming less than ever, whereas each million prior years is likely offering 1% greater loss. In other words, for the last couple billion years that moon of ours has to have lost a great deal of its original mass despite all of the asteroids, meteors and those physical particles of sufficient density encountering our moon and/or as having been electrostatically attracted to our highly charged moon that gives off gamma.

Even using a highly conservative outgassing estimate of only a thousand tonnes per month or 12,000 tonnes per year, is still twelve thousand billion tonnes(12e15 kg) loss per GY, and if the ongoing influx of sufficiently heavy elements sticking with that moon amounted to 10,000 tonnes/year would not cover the losses and otherwise would only suggest as to yet another great deal of surface dust that our NASA/Apollo era found no such objective evidence of, because all of their Apollo landing sites encountered hardly any surface depth of loose physical deposits to contend with, much less of any mineral/element colors or even of any UV reactive element colors/hues other than inert monochromatic stuff that reflected so much better than any remote science from satellites or from terrestrial based observations could have predicted, and even their Kodak film performed without any hit of having been exposed to such an unprotected extreme environment, yet their efforts to record anything other than Earth above the naked and physically dark surface of that moon proved that the photographic and optical laws of physics were acting quite different while on the moon, and thereby needed corrective photographic doctoring (aka PhotoShop) efforts just to give us a look-see of our planet as photographed from the monochromatic surface of that moon via an unfiltered optical and standard kodak film technology, as though our moon still offered some weird transparent kind of protective and/or UV blocking atmosphere.

"Many elements that are rare on Earth can be found aplenty on the moon. Satellite imaging has shown that the top 10 centimetres of regolith (moon soil) at the south pole of the moon appears to hold about 100 times the concentration of gold of the richest mines in the world, according to a recent paper coauthored by Dale Boucher, the CEO of Deltion Innovations, based in Sudbury, Ont."
"There is a business case now for mining (on the moon) as an economic activity," said Boucher.

I hate having to say that I told you so, especially for the thousandth time, that we need to be exploiting our moon. At least within the moon it is not only habitat failsafe but likely a host to mineral brines, and thereby no shortage of water.

[Brad Guth]

There should be some new amateur color images of our super-moon getting posted and otherwise picked up by the Google image archive. Don't bother to share any of this with our colorblind NASA, DARPA, ASU and JPL, because any such color enhanced images are supposed to be fakes and otherwise entirely PhotoShop created by the most untrustworthy individuals that artificially colored it to suit.
http://www.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.png

In addition to all the usual heavier elements as typically hard as well as mostly of paramagnetic stuff that our moon has to offer, it seems our moon offers a treasure trove of a few diamagnetic elements plus numerous low density elements that can be easily mined and exploited (some of which like 3He/He3 are extremely valuable), or simply left for the natural process to sublime, vent and forever lose track of, especially the case when there is so little if any option of these lofty elements within such a hard and crystal dry environment of seldom if ever binding with most other elements.

Sodium = 3.818e-26 kg per Na atom

Moon 9r = 1564200000 cm = 1.6e28 cm3

1.6e28 * 16 = 2.56e29 atoms of sodium surrounding our moon.

2.56e29 * 3.818e-26 = 9.77e3 kg of sodium surrounding our moon

-

Solar wind blown tail = 900,000 km (9e10 cm) averaging 4r and 12/cm3

4r = 695200000 cm = 1.52e18 cm2

1.52e18 x 9e10 = 1.37e29 cm3

1.37e29 x 12 = 16.44e29 Na

16.44e29 x 3.818e-26 = 63e3 kg or 63 tonnes of sodium contained within that solar wind blown tail of sodium.

According to the best available science, there's a sodium/Na cloud worth 9 tonnes as surrounding our moon out to 9r and perhaps at least another 63 tonnes as trailing away from our moon, of sodium that has to be continually replenished.

The extremely hot daytime and hard vacuum of that lunar surface and of its mostly physically dark and paramagnetic basalt bedrock/crust, gives off its sodium element quite easily. No doubt that deep within the lunar crust, its sodium is still getting melted/boiled (as well as via the surface heat of day) and those vapors are made available as to eventually surface and escape into the surrounding hard vacuum of space.

A 9r cloud of sodium surrounds our moon, and if it were averaging perhaps as much as 32/cm3, whereas that greater cloud density represents perhaps 18 tonnes, plus it maintains yet another 900,000 km tapered tail of solar wind blown sodium averaging perhaps as great as 16/cm3 (84 tonnes). Anyone want to offer a swag as to how many million tonnes of sodium loss is required per billion years, or even per million years?

If our moon stopped subliming and venting its sodium(Na); how many months or years would it take the solar wind to blow those lofty 9 tonne remainders of Na away?

Of course, in addition to the ongoing loss of Na, there's also the ongoing loss of its hydrogen, helium and a few other lofty elements of insufficient atomic mass that are not exactly going to be all that insignificant when quantified over any long period of time. Assuming that moon is venting and/or subliming less than ever, whereas each million prior years is likely offering 1% greater loss. In other words, for the last couple billion years that moon of ours has to have lost a great deal of its original mass despite all of the asteroids, meteors and those physical particles of sufficient density encountering our moon and/or as having been electrostatically attracted to our highly charged moon that gives off gamma.

Even using a highly conservative outgassing estimate of only a thousand tonnes per month or 12,000 tonnes per year, is still twelve thousand billion tonnes(12e15 kg) loss per GY, and if the ongoing influx of sufficiently heavy elements sticking with that moon amounted to 10,000 tonnes/year would not cover the losses and otherwise would only suggest as to yet another great deal of surface dust that our NASA/Apollo era found no such objective evidence of, because all of their Apollo landing sites encountered hardly any surface depth of loose physical deposits to contend with, much less of any mineral/element colors or even of any UV reactive element colors/hues other than inert monochromatic stuff that reflected so much better than any remote science from satellites or from terrestrial based observations could have predicted, and even their Kodak film performed without any hit of having been exposed to such an unprotected extreme environment, yet their efforts to record anything other than Earth above the naked and physically dark surface of that moon proved that the photographic and optical laws of physics were acting quite different while on the moon, and thereby needed corrective photographic doctoring (aka PhotoShop) efforts just to give us a look-see of our planet as photographed from the monochromatic surface of that moon via an unfiltered optical and standard kodak film technology, as though our moon still offered some weird transparent kind of protective and/or UV blocking atmosphere.

"Many elements that are rare on Earth can be found aplenty on the moon. Satellite imaging has shown that the top 10 centimetres of regolith (moon soil) at the south pole of the moon appears to hold about 100 times the concentration of gold of the richest mines in the world, according to a recent paper coauthored by Dale Boucher, the CEO of Deltion Innovations, based in Sudbury, Ont."
"There is a business case now for mining (on the moon) as an economic activity," said Boucher.

I hate having to say that I told you so, especially for the thousandth time, suggesting that we need to be exploiting our moon. At least within the moon it is not only habitat failsafe and temperate cozy to our liking, and it's likely a host to mineral brines, and thereby no shortage of water.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

[Brad Guth]

Our moon is on average quite physically dark, but it isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert as our Apollo era discovered of so many areas of nearly off-white terrain with little or nothing of physically dark stuff, much less of any mineral/element colors (not even of any UV secondary/recoil hues) to speak of.

William Mook:
"The moon has a few things to recommend it over the Earth. The first and foremost, especially for planet wide constructions, is the lack of geology on the scale of the Earth. The second, is the lack of an interfering biosphere. We can do many things on the moon that we would not want to do on Earth. The third aspect of the moon is its nearness in space. We can signal the Earth from the moon, and vice versa, and we can easily travel between Earth and moon with modest space vehicle technology."

As based upon exploiting just 0.1% of the lunar interior volume (2.2e16 m3 of easily enough TBM excavated lunar innards), whereas it seems like this tunneling excavation process is offering us more than a good enough volume of providing a very failsafe habitat, and those easily extracted common and rare elements from the TBM spoils seems like it should hold us for many thousands of years worth of continued mass consumption, even with most everyone living large, not to mention processing the surface accumulation of loose rock, soil and dust for obtaining those rare elements including He3.

A century of tunneling into the moon isn't even capable of reducing the mass of the moon by any measurable amount, not even if utilizing its material for creating the L1 and L2 elevators and of whatever rare elements that eventually get processed and exported back to Earth would be more than easily offset by the accumulating mass which is derived from Earth and otherwise via the continued influx of asteroids and dust attributed to lithobraking impacts and extensively held by the local gravity. In other words, a net mass exchange of remaining nearly equal to its original 7.348e22 kg even though large volumes of its helium, sodium and a few other vapors of sufficiently lofty elements are leaking out or simply subliming because of the surface heat by day and its hard vacuum, thereby getting easily solar wind blown away.

The physically heavy and offset core of our moon provides a nearly perpetual thermal energy bank of its residual heat plus offering numerous fission elements, and because of this highly insulated interior that's so nicely protected by its fused paramagnetic basalt crust and thereby hosting its core of geothermal energy as efficiency maintained better than the core energy of Earth, should take us at least thousands of years in order to 50% deplete, and of its accessibility as well as for mining of the raw solar influx worth 1.4 kw/m2 is going to become about as straightforward renewable energy and fully integrated with relative ease, especially once we reposition the moon as being station kept at Earth L1.

The mostly basalt crust that is physically dark and extensively paramagnet (unlike most any of our Apollo era samples of a medium-light monochromatic gray and relatively low composite density), instead offering 3.5+ g/cm3 density and likely loaded with numerous heavy elements of more than sufficient value (including portions as carbonado that can be directly made into continuous fiber for tether applications), is going to represent yet another treasure trove for humanity and for accomplishing our future off-world exploitations of other planets and moons. Unlimited carbonado could even be rather easily commercial manufactured on the moon or at either tethered outpost/gateway/oasis.

Amateurs with somewhat limited optics and as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can still manage to do so much better geology science than any observationology expertise of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/moon.htm
http://www.danielegasparri.com/Inglese/images/Moon/20111004_gasparri.jpg
http://www.astronomie.be/christophe.behaegel/Moon%20in%20Color/index.html
As once again we get to see for ourselves, with the use of proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image layer stacking, and otherwise by using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even accomplished by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have done for us as of decades ago from such an unobstructed close lunar orbit along with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC mission that's still mostly colorblind. None the less, and once again from an amateur is where we get a full visual spectrum with its color saturation merely cranked up, offers a very look-see at what seems to depict a surface treasure trove of common and rare elements worth mining.

Why minerals are colored:
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/acstalks/acs-colr.htm
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/learn/science4

So, indeed the moon is an extremely valuable item, not to mention the obvious geoengineering solution as to resolving our resource demanding GW+AGW issues right here on Earth by blocking up to 3.5% of the solar influx, as well as greatly reduced seismic triggering and fully regulated tidal considerations that'll accomplish far more good than harm, and when combined is worth well over ten trillion per year in 2115 dollars (possibly worth a trillion per month by 2115).

As is, our moon can be easily evaluated as worth over a trillion per year to us, in preventing damages caused to our global environment that's losing its essential cache of glacial ice faster than we can manage to upgrade and/or adapt our technology and social infrastructure.

Efforts by others to essentially hijack topics in order to harmlessly plagiarize and/or divert their focus or intent isn't always helping, and because Mook tends to provide too much information, although as of recently his topic feedback has become somewhat less naysay and more constructive. Indeed Mook has has proposed many off-world exploitation examples (some of which having included our moon), and for that I've taken his feedback talent and expertise as a serious contribution rather than topic hijacking with ulterior motives. However, to the new and/or easily intimidated reader or mainstream media in search of interesting material, it's unlikely that they would understand and exercise sufficiently selective reading in order to interpret such reply context as being helpful.

Our topic context stability needs to be given a greater focus, upon informing and educating the casual readers that may have accidentally come into reading some of our topics and replies. Perhaps only a few of those are likely to be much better off than a typical 5th grader at understanding what we have to offer. Topics from William Mook and his replies to others are typically of those by far the most sophisticated and science/physics advanced beyond that of most graduate doctorate degree status, or in other words at least 10 years too far ahead of the average educated readers and otherwise seemingly 15 years above most of the regular Usenet/newsgroup contributors that have always been mainstream indoctrinated and/or snookered by their peers, instead of their being educated to deductively interpret and think for themselves.

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 10:42:23 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote: