Moon observation
Pippen
o'clock to the 4 o'clock and an orange fringe from the 4 o'clock to the 10
o'clock (thru the scope so image was flipped but the blue was still on top
and the orange on the bottom). I targeted the scope to different parts and
saw the same thing, I also tried different EP's and still the same effect
although the higher magnifications showed a more pronounced fringe and
color.
Just to clear up any confusion about my definition of fringe; I'm referring
to the area at the edge of the Moon and space that forms a circle around the
Moon (hopefully this explains a little better). This fringe was very thin
and was not noticed at first.
The Moon was low in the sky only about 25° to 30° up from the horizon so I
was looking through a lot of atmosphere (I live at 6100 ft in low humidity).
My assumption is that maybe the Moon's gravity or the position from which
the Sun was shining on it was bending the light so I was seeing a red shift
on the bottom and a blue shift on the top?
These are my best guesses, anyone care to educate me on what actually caused
the orange and blue fringe around the Moon tonight?
TIA,
-p
Brad Guth
Sam Wormley
> That's just a slight lunar atmosphere you're having to deal with.
>
observer
I suspect what you saw was what we call "chromatic abberation" - caused
by the lenses in refractors (achromatic ones).
This means that the lenses do not bend light of all colors the same
way. Short focal achromats expose this "defect" most prominent, and
longer focal lengths perform better. Then there are apochromats, but
they are much more expensive.
It could also be a poorly designed eyepiece.
--
observer
Bernhard Rems
Editor - 'The Astronomers' (http://theastronomers.com)
Vienna/Austria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
observer's Profile: http://theastronomers.com/vb3/member.php?userid=1
View this thread: http://theastronomers.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=935
Pippen
"observer" <obse...@theastronomers.com> wrote in message
news:observe...@no-mx.theastronomers.com...
First very nice site... I'm now a member... I will at this point assume it
is my scope or EP's. Just a bit more information that did not initially
provide. I should also mention that I'm very new to this if that were not
already apparent.
I'm using an ETX-125 which I believe is a refractor (Maksutov-Cassegrain
design). I though it might be the scope so I did the following:
* Used three different EP's (Meade Plossl 26mm, Mead Plossl 15mm wide angle
and a Celestron Ultima 12.5mm) all with the same result.
* For each EP I pointed to a different section of the Moon so that is was
either all in the blue or all in the orange and while in each area moved the
scope in small circles with in the orange or blue to check the entire area
of the mirror to see if the color would change and it did not... I would
have expected the orange to change to blue while making the small circle if
it were part of the scope causing the color...
Thanks for your input,
-p
William Hamblen
> Tonight I was observing the Moon. I noticed a blue fringe from the 10
> o'clock to the 4 o'clock and an orange fringe from the 4 o'clock to the 10
> o'clock (thru the scope so image was flipped but the blue was still on top
> and the orange on the bottom). I targeted the scope to different parts and
> saw the same thing, I also tried different EP's and still the same effect
> although the higher magnifications showed a more pronounced fringe and
> color.
When the moon is close to the horizon atmospheric dispersion will color
the top edge blue and the bottom edge red or orange.
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.
Pippen
"William Hamblen" <wrha...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:t7WdnQcen_B...@comcast.com...
Thank you!
-p
Pippen
"Brad Guth" <ieisbr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127159279.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pippen,
> Actually, at times there has been photo/CCD recorded and as even
> somewhat having been visible to the naked eye as a cloud of sodium
> leaving the moon for some odd 900,000 km worth, although nearby the
> lunar surface were substantial populations of those sodium atoms along
> with a great deal of released O2 that didn't even require any
> specialized CCD detection, but must have spectrum skewed the raw solar
> photons as having to get through such an atmospheric gauntlet.
>
> Would you like a link as to those sodium trails of lunar atmosphere as
> having been CCD recorded?
> ~
>
> Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
> The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
> Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
> http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
> War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
> the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
> been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
>
Brad,
Sure, please send me the link... I'm not sure if you are teasing me or if
you are serious. I will be the first to admit that I know very little about
this topic. I must admit when I first read your reply I assumed it was a NFG
joke. Please send the link I'm always looking to learn more.
-p
Brad Guth
pa...@lawler.net
(in article <QYudna-OgsZ...@comcast.com>):
Or any other bright object (e.g., Jupiter, Venus, etc.).
Brad Guth
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26oct_1.htm
Of course this trail affect had been spotted before but went either
misunderstood or merely excluded because it didn't quite fit within the
status quo holy grail of our NASA/Apollo science. The sodium cloud has
actually been visible to the naked eye, however a spectrum band-pass
filter of the yellow-green (somewhat greenish mustard) tint of sodium
works best. A search for "moon sodium" or "sodium trail" should get
lots more than you'll actually need to know about.
Wherever there's sodium there's got to be a good cash of O2 since the
portion of O2 is roughly 50% of the vaporised basalt and, it seems the
sodium(Na2O) content is usually contributing something less than 4%.
Therefore, if the lunar basalt had been vaporised as to releasing the
sodium, then also the O2 had to have been released along with most all
the other elements of lunar basalt, thus having created a fairly
substantial atmospheric population of closely packed atoms near the
lunar surface, starting with perhaps having to blend in with several
meters worth of radon, then other elements as made available via the
natural process of the lunar core outgassing, and of course via those
impacts that would have piled their lighter elements well above the
surface clinging radon as mixed along with a good amount of local argon
and having CO2 essentially as the icing on top of one another until the
lighter sorts of basalt released O2 and of the sodium portion that was
simply too light of an element for the lunar gravity to hold onto,
especialy once having been further impacted by the solar influx worth
of additional heating plus otherwise the likes of sodium easily
extracted by the 300+km/s solar wind.
Raw as nearly pure basalt of 3.1 g/cm3 (as having been processed into a
basalt fiber density = 2.7~2.75 g/cm3), contains little if any carbon,
but offers these primary elements:
SiO2 58.7
Al2O3 17.2
Fe2O3 10.3
MgO 3.82
CaO 8.04
Na2O 3.34
K2O 0.82
TiO2 1.16
P2O5 0.28
MnO 0.16
Cr2O3 0.06
Other items cruising through space seem to have provided a sodium
trail, thus our moon is basically a very large comet like item that's
capable of releasing the likes of sodium, which certainly has to
represent that it's also capable of releasing other elements in even
greater mass, although perhaps a bit less noticeable unless you're
focused upon identifying such.
http://www.americanwest.com/pages/uncomnws.htm
Sodium gas trail discovered behind the Hale-Bopp comet
Update 4/20/97:
Astronomers say the have found a third tail trailing behind the
Hale-Bopp comet - a thin straight jet of sodium gas unlike any other
seen before, The Boston Globe reported yesterday. The discovery was
made Friday by a team of astronomers at the Isaac Newton Group of
telescopes in the Canary Islands. The scientists were at a loss to
explain how the sodium tail was created. The astronomers used a filter
over a telescope that allowed them to detect the light given off by
sodium gas, the same yellow glow seen in ordinary sodium-vapor street
lamps. Astronomers have long known that comets have two types of tails
- one made of dust and the other of electrically charged gas called
plasma. They have also known that comets contain sodium, but had never
seen it before in the form of a tail.
Perhaps a deep-green band-pass filter for selectively imaging whatever
trail of lunar O2 is just a matter of someone doing just that. Although
at times our own polluted atmosphere acts as an optical spectrum
band-pass filter that's even a bit photon reactive all on it's own.
Pippen
Brad,
Thank you for the links and info. I found it very interesting that the Moon
has an "exosphere". I had assumed that surface was a vacuum. I understand
that the exosphere is close to a vacuum but still exists. Is this common to
other moons and planets as well?
-p
Brad Guth
Actually, several moons that are even smaller and/or of lesser density
seem to have developed and held onto even greater amounts of an
atmosphere, although ours seems to have once upon a time been that of
an icy proto-moon that supposedly only has the remainders of an 850°C
core of somewhat well insulated thermal energy to work with, thus not
quite enough geothermal outgassing for sustaining the needs of other
than perhaps a meager atmosphere, that along with external impacts
somewhat builds and goes away depending upon the solar winds.
Artificial impacts might just be capable of creating 0.028 bar,
although it's not likely such is ever going to become sustained on
behalf of our taking any naked walkabout. However, 0.028 bar would
certainly make deployments of AI/robotics rather simple and efficient.
Perhaps a km worth of radon as topped off with the likes of argon and
then CO2 can be expected to stick around, as that would become the best
sort of ticket to ride if you're an incoming robotic deployment of any
size and mass.
At times our lunar atmosphere might even be sufficient for using an
extremely large area and if need be inflated parachute for getting a
few robotic items as safely deployed onto a lunar surface, that which
in large areas might represent less than 5 g/cm2 worth of a
dry-quicksand of a rather poor amount of surface-tension. Obviously
exposed bedrock should be targeted because, otherwise some of that
lightly compacted and very dry-quicksand terrain of such moon dirt or
somewhat dark talk-powder has been suggested as 10+ meters deep.
David Knisely
> Thank you for the links and info. I found it very interesting that the Moon
> has an "exosphere". I had assumed that surface was a vacuum. I understand
> that the exosphere is close to a vacuum but still exists. Is this common to
> other moons and planets as well?
While the moon does have a very very thin atmosphere, it is, for all
practical purposes, a pretty good vacuum (as good as or perhaps a bit
better than the best vacuums we can create on Earth, but still not
perfect). This is easily seen during stellar occultations when stars
show no extinction and instantly vanish as they pass behind the lunar
limb. As others have pointed out, the color you were observing was due
to the Earth's atmosphere bending light unequally and *not* due to any
lunar atmosphere (your telescope, BTW, is a Maksutov-Cassegrain
reflector and not a refractor). There are atoms and some charged
particles above the lunar surface which form a very very rarified
extended lunar atmosphere, so it isn't exactly a "perfect" vacuum in the
theoretical sense. However, these particles are so few and far between
that meteoroids suffer little or no significant resistance when the plow
into the moon. Indeed, the Lunar Orbiter and Apollo spacecraft orbited
quite close to the lunar surface without suffering any significant drag.
There is so little "atmosphere" there that the gasses emitted by the
Apollo spacecraft during the lunar missions actually increased the total
mass of the lunar atmosphere by 30 percent! However, that was
temporary, as the solar wind and escape mechanisms soon returned the
values of lunar atmosphere to the pre-mission levels.
Other moons in the solar system tend to not have much in the way
of thick atmospheres, although there are some of the larger moons
(Triton, Encleadus, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, etc.) which have
somewhat denser (but still tenuous) atmospheres than our moon. However,
these atmospheres are still way too thin to have much of an effect on
something like a meteoroid or a spacecraft. Like the Earth's moon,
Mercury also has a very very thin atmosphere which might make a decent
terrestrial vacuum. Mars has a thin atmosphere but it is vastly more
dense than the one on the moon and is capable of generating local
weather as well as affecting spacecraft (we used that atmosphere to help
land several probes on the Martian surface). Venus has an atmosphere
which is even denser than that of our Earth's, while the large gas giant
planets have incredible thick atmospheres.
One notable exception to moons having almost vacuum-like
atmospheres is Saturn's large moon Titan. It has a *very* thick
atmosphere mostly because of Titan's larger mass and great distance from
the sun. This great distance allows most of the atmospheric gas to stay
cold enough so that much of the molecules and atoms don't move fast
enough to escape from Titan's gravity, at least at a very fast rate.
Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 12th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 31 - Aug. 5, 2005, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************
David Knisely
until they plow into the moon". Obviously, when they hit the moon,
there is a *lot* of resistance. Clear skies to you.
Brad Guth
Thanks so much for the usual of quoting your MI6/NSA~NASA Koran
scriptures, as now you can go back to telling children how folks walked
upon the moon without their even having fly-by-rocket lander technology
nor that of unfiltered Kodak physics doing what it should have.
Obviously you don't agree with the regular laws of physics any more so
than for whatever's hard-science of lunar sodium trails and most
certainly that of O2 trails, nor that of anything which taints your
pagan LLPOF religion. That's really too gosh darn bad that you're so
intellectually bigoted to the point of thou being biologically bigoted
to boot.
Obviously you wouldn't agree with the square of the distance formula as
it applies to lunar secondary/recoil TBI dosage nailing any butt that
getting close. Thus I suppose your flat-Earth cultism is safe once
again from the truth and nothing but the truth. Obviously you'll accept
purely subjective soft-science that's entirely mainstream infomercial
delivered by way of your MI6/NSA~NASA cultism without a second thought
nor a stitch of remorse as long as it pays the rent.
Being a certified liar isn't so bad I guess, that is if you're getting
that nifty paycheck every so often for doing your small LLPOF part.
Other than whatever's stipulated by NASA, please tell us with
hard-science as to how the thin atmosphere of our moon is doing these
days.
David Knisely
There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.
Now speculation's helpful
in spawning new concepts,
but these poor souls go WAY past that
when they cook up their precepts.
It wouldn't be so bad, you know
if they kept things real low-key,
but they insist on churning out
lengthy works for all to see.
Their knowledge of the sciences
is often minimal at best.
From that weak base, they spin long yarns,
and make themselves a pest.
They often don't have the patience
for learning physics, and the math.
Instead, they concoct "inner" truths
in place of logic, which they lack.
They often use what math they know
to cobble up crank linkings,
or rambling numerology
to back up their false thinking.
They spout out much confusion,
running counter to known laws
of Physics and Astronomy.
They spew forth much with flaws.
They fling their stuff throughout Usenet
to newsgroups well off-topic,
to get attention for themselves
from posts unwanted and myopic.
They get the goat of many
who respond to all their stuff,
and gain desired attention
from those who shout "ENOUGH!"
Some jump on readers who dare to hint
that their ideas lack some truth,
and fire back long derisive flames,
pouring more garbage down the chute.
They mislead the rank beginner
and drive professor-types insane,
and all the while they relish
in their wonderous new-found fame.
They clutter up the newsgroups
with their theories, oh so flawed,
but if you argue with them
you just help them in their cause.
So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!
D. Knisely
Brad Guth
It seems for the likes of "David Knisely", life with a stitch of
remorse sucks because;
>There are some posters out there
>who feel the need to formulate
>their own elaborate theories
>about the heavens and their fate.
status quo rant, which is why such folks are not likely going to
contribute an honest squat upon this next related sub-topic as to the
lunar atmosphere and subsequent environment.
The temperature on moon surface is what I believe can become moderated
to suit, at least on behalf of robotics that can be robust and thus
engineered so as to not care about their local radioactive background
dosage environment nor of whatever's incoming that's producing all of
that truly nasty secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. However, with
such a crystal clear layer of Radon plus another extended layer of
Argon should create quit a well insulated environment that's capable of
getting a damn site hotter than the sort of hell reported by our cloak
and dagger MI6/NSA~NASA Apollo spooks.
In spite of all the brown-nosed minions of their mainstream status quo
that thinks and/or keeps insisting at we village idiots should only
think that we've already done that and been there, thus why all of
their need-to-know and/or taboo/nondisclosure that sucks and blows at
the same time, which only seems rather out of proper form, especially
when it appears that building/terraforming an artificial lunar
atmosphere for robotics has been doable without our ever risking so
much as one TBI white hair upon another astronaut:
Not that I'm insisting this as the one and only alternative, however
for further sportmanship reasons I'm thinking that the likes of Radon
gas should become liquid at night and, otherwise expand out to perhaps
an atmospheric depth of a km by day. Topped off by mostly argon that
might reach as far as 50 km by day and something less than 10 km by
nighttime/earthshine.
According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."
"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy,
but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the heavier
ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier molecules were
not present."
"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4>
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass
and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average 260m/s
which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules (m=28) on
the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a fifth of the
escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all molecules travel at
the average velocity, some travel faster and leak away. The Earth isn't
able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they average about a fifth
of
Earth's escape velocity."
"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."
Density of dry ice: anywhere from 1.2 to 1.6 kg/dm³ depends upon
compactness (avg 1.5 g/cm3)
Frozen solid form at -78.5° C
Sublimes at anything much hoter than -78°C
In a snowball form of compactness upon the moon it may represent less
than 1 g/cm3.
Radon, Rn atomic number: 86
Atomic mass: [222] gmol-1(no stable nuclide)
Isotope: 222Rn (222.017570)
Specific gravity of the liquid state is 4.4 g/cm3 at -62°C, and SG of
the solid state becomes 4 g/cm3, thus 4 tonnes/m3 if frozen solid and
especially frozen solid if that Rn were sequestered by the likes of
frozen CO2 at 1.5 g/mm3.
A cubic meter of each substance, that which Earth needs to get rid of
anyway, represents a composite sphere of 5.5~5.9 tonnes, and that's not
actually all that large of diameter of what can be easily directed at
impacting (not orbiting) the moon. From the zero-G vantage point of
such being accelerated from the nullification zone of roughly 60,000 km
away from the moon gives an hour, in that there's an unobstructed path
of least resistance that'll also benefit from the 1.623 m/s/s worth of
gravity, whereas this should not require all that much added thrust
energy for getting the final velocity up to good speed of final impact
becoming worth at least 30 km/s (9 fold better KE bang/kg than DEEP
IMPACT), although what's stopping us from achieving 60+km/s?.
Our moon is already fairly radioactive by several fold greater than
Earth, thus another clue that our moon is actually that of an icy
proto-moon as having arrived instead of being ejected out of Earth,
that plus the much having lesser density makes a whole lot more sense
than any spendy computer model that's keeping the likes of a Pope and
other terrestrial or but religions as happy campers.
Of course, my lunar terraforming notions of artificially bombing the
holy crap out of our moon with the likes of large blocks or spheres of
dry-ice having frozen Rn within, besides creating whatever horrific
meteor like impacts worth of vaporising lunar basalt into capably
releasing a ratio of 1e6:1 worth of O2, the very nature of the
delivered CO2 might subsequently revert to just good old elements of
co/o2 or perhaps react into just C and O2, whereas the Radon element
should have vanished within a few days unless we'd replaced and/or
supplemented that lunar bombing of frozen Rn with the likes of
including Ra226 which might even react quite nicely with the already
available He3 into making a nifty long-term supply of creating Rn.
After the Ra226 is sufficiently depleted, say in 6400 years it should
be at 1/16th of it's initial potency, and by then having established a
good amount of terraformed atmosphere as becoming the case since the
amount of continual Radon-222 would have extensively moderated the
hot/cold of the lunar day/night differential to something quite
manageable for the likes of holding onto O2, whereas by then there
shouldn't be hardly any significant local radioactive threat for naked
humans that could be safely accommodated for 60 earthshine days upon
the surface of our moon, that which a reasonably engineered moonsuit
couldn't manage, or at least sufficient as for accommodating the likes
of whomever we don't want living here on Earth (I have a growing list
of whom those folks should be, roughly the bulk of the upper 0.1% of
humanity that have been pillaging and raping mother Earth while
continually snookering the lower 99.9% of humanity, and I do believe
there should be plenty of available space on and/or within the moon for
accommodating each and every one of those 15e6 folks in spite of all
the deployed Ra226 that upon average shouldn't have modified the
already background radioactive terrain by more than 10%).
According to the above "Molecular Speed Calculation" of Argon-40, even
if the elevated average altitude represented at worst 100°C (373K)
would give Argon the maximum RMS velocity of 482.4 m/s which obviously
should stick around. Even that of O2-32 only jumps to an RMS velocity
of 539 m/s which should also stay put at least up until a truly nasty
solar wind of 1200~2400 km/s excavates such lighter mass elements away.
So, you tell me why artificially bombing our moon, and especially with
the sorts of nasty stuff that Earth is getting more and more desperate
to get rid of isn't such a good idea.
>So stick to just the cold hard facts
>and do not engage these fools.
>As time goes on, they should then fade
>and prove that knowledge rules!
- D. Knisely
Obviously this nifty rant closing was speaking on behalf of warning us
about himself, as for our not bothering to engage such mainstream
rusemasters because, doing so will only bring us MOS LLPOF infomercials
and thus wasting human talents, resources of expertise and energy as
well as sustaining collateral damage and continued carnage of the
innocent.
BTW; just because certain folks fade is more than likely because
they're too smart to waste valuable time and resources upon the lost
cause of humanity that's ruled by and thereby performing as brown-nosed
minions to the upper most 0.1%, of which the likes of lord D. Knisely
is apparently even somewhat above that.
Brad Guth
David Knisely
a few bricks short of a full load as far as Astronomy is concerned.
--
David W. Knisely KA0...@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/
**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
David Knisely
gently down the screen.
Merily, merily, merily, merily,
your stuff's just not worth beans!
Oh, and by the way......
**PLONK!!**
Brad Guth
Before we common folk, the likes of yourself and even "tj Frazir" (in
other words the apparent scum of the Earth according as to whatever the
mainstream status quo has to say) can fully appreciate "What's actually
HOT and NASTY about Venus", whereas instead we may need to regress a
few decades in order to fully appreciate upon the available
hard-science that's pertaining to what's actually all that HOT and
NASTY about our Moon?
Earth's atmosphere at sea level is worthy of 3e19 molecules/cm3 or 3e25
atoms/m3.
Moon's average surface atmosphere is supposely 2e7 molecules/cm3 or
2e13 atoms/m3.
Although element wise, the near surface atmosphere of the moon should
also be hosting of whatever's between that of Radon and O2 that's in
addition to the rather robust populations of sodium that's not exactly
an element in short supply.
"Wilson and his colleagues at Boston University, led by Prof. Michael
Mendillo, routinely monitor the Moon's tail. They use extraordinarily
sensitive cameras that can detect sunlight scattered from as few as 5
sodium
atoms per cubic centimeter."
"I think we'll look back years from now and realize that 1998 was very
special," agrees Wilson. "The fireballs on Earth were unique and we've
never
detected another meteor-related enhancement of the Moon's tail. That
includes 1999 when the sheer number of Leonids hitting the Moon was
probably
much higher than the year before. Even in '98, when the sodium density
tripled two days after the shower (that's how long it takes for sodium
to
travel down the tail the length of the Moon's orbit), the enhancement
didn't
last long. The sodium tail faded back to normal within 24 hours.
"David Asher and Rob McNaught predict as many as 10,000 meteors per
hour on
Earth and similar numbers of impacts on the Moon."
For another example upon what's good about our extremely nearby moon;
the lunar sodium atmosphere that's certainly been a whole lot thicker
as of lately and offering so much greater expanse than you'd think,
whereas for appreciating such is why we obviously need a surface
reading of what's what, and not that of another remote estimate as
obtained from instruments in orbit.
Even the notions of them Russians and/or the Chinese robotically mining
the moon may have always been a bit easier to accompliush than we'd
thought. However, before we common folk, the likes of "tj Frazir" and
myself (in other words the apparent scum of the Earth according to
whatever the mainstream status quo has to say) can fully appreciate
"What's actually HOT and NASTY about Venus", whereas instead we may
need to regress ourselves by a few decades in order to fully appreciate
the hard-science that's recently become available as pertaining to
what's actually all that HOT and NASTY as well as surmountable about
our Moon?
The task of their getting whatever safely and thus having to softly
deploy items upon the extremely dusty moon is doable as long as those
forms of robotics are being kept small and light enough so as to being
least massive, so as to slowing the arrival of them suckers down to
perhaps 10 m/s and, they are still that of a sufficient surface
coverage configuration so as to not summarily sink out of sight as did
previous attempts.
Besides the raw solar influx aspects of 1.4 kw/m2 scorching
continuously upon most any given portion of the moon for nearly a month
at a time, thus getting whatever's dark and nasty extremely hot and not
to mention damn reactive as all get out. How about for the all around
sporting heck of it all, lets say we jump off the mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP that's been entirely owned and operated by our
NASA/Apollo rusemasters, in order to discuss our going back to our moon
for the very first time, so as to get an honest to God grasp upon
whatever the lunar atmosphere is actually all about. Of course, I'm
speaking robotically since it's usually so downright hot, reactive and
physically nasty or otherwise just damn cold and nasty upon our moon,
not to mention that robotics are certainly a whole lot cheaper than
clumping moon-dirt and obviously so much safer as compared to human
efforts and, since we're talking of accomplishing this as a one way
robotic ticket to ride and there shouldn't hardly be any R&D required,
as such robots are going to be damn fast at getting the job done, and
without any need of their having banked bone marrow standing by.
Seems rather gosh darn pathetically odd that there was never one usenet
contribution or even a worthy sub-topic generated thought as to
appreciating this perfectly nifty NYT published consideration, of which
we can go back through decades before, only to uncover MOS sequestered
information as to the lunar sodium atmosphere;
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/59366d395809215b/ac201e82b060a176?lnk=st&q=lunar+atmosphere&rnum=9&hl=en#ac201e82b060a176
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service
Now researchers at Boston University, who two years ago determined
that the rarefied gas bubble surrounding the Moon extended 5,000 miles
high, say new studies show that the lunar atmosphere reaches out twice
as far.
The astronomers, Dr. Michael Mendillo and Dr. Jeffrey Baumgardner of
the Center for Space Physics at Boston University, said that during
the eclipse the Moon was totally in Earth's shadow, blocking the
bright moonlight that obscures observations of gases in the lunar
atmosphere. Under these conditions, the astronomers were able to
detect the faint glow of sodium gas, which serves as a marker for
other gases in the lunar atmosphere.
"We were surprised to find that this glow extended to over nine times
the radius of the Moon, to a height of about 14,000 kilometers, or
9,000 miles above the Moon's surface," Mendillo said.
The researchers say their observations have enabled them to rule out
some theories on the origin of the lunar atmosphere. They believe that
the most likely explanation is the evaporation of atoms from the lunar
surface when it is struck by light particles called photons coming
from sunlight. Sodium and other elements escape the surface through
erosion caused by the bombardment of photons.
The astronomers earlier ruled out a suggestion that the lunar
atmosphere was formed by the constant bombardment of the surface by
micrometeorites. If the micrometeorite theory was true, they said, the
atmosphere would be evenly distributed instead of being irregular in
shape, as their measurements indicate.
Another theory holds that solar wind -- charged particles streaming
from the Sun -- kicks up surface atoms as it lashes the lunar surface.
But the researchers said this theory now appeared to be eliminated
because Earth's magnetic field traps solar wind and shields the lunar
surface during the full-moon phase, when their observations show the
tenuous lunar atmosphere fully extended above the surface.
-
If the regular lunar atmosphere of any substance extends out as far as
having been reported, then obviously doing the math of what was at the
time of Nov. 1993 as having been detectable at 8r (14,000 km) off the
lunar deck as representing perhaps as few as 100 atoms/cm3 worth of
sodium, whereas that amount certainly represents quit a bit of what's
compiled upon the deck (I'm merely suggesting 12.8e6/cm3 or 12.8e9/m3),
especially since sodium is most certainly one of the lighter elements
of available mass that's associated within the mostly basalt lunar
surface that's having been continually giving birth to such sodium gas.
Obviously from meteor impacts having contributed a great deal of
further insult to injury were subsequently generating massive amounts
of additional sodium atmosphere, thereby having co-generated other
elements such as good old O2, of which the molecular speed of even hot
O2 simply wouldn't have been so easily excavated away by the typical
hot and nasty gauntlet of solar winds (100~300 km/s).
Upon being under siege my a nasty gauntlet of micro and not so micro
meteorites might easily suggest having multiplied the atmospheric
population of sodium by as great as a billion fold, making the near
surface sodium density worth 6.4e15 ~ 12.8e15 sodium atoms/m3 plus all
of the other much heavier elements as equally having been released
becoming near worthy of creating 0.028 bar.
This image and information as to Leonids impacting the Moon imposes
further notions as to what the intensity of such impacts created with
respect to the visible aspects of sodium. According to at least one CCD
expterise and of the narrow optical/band-pass spectrum filter utilized
is suggesting that perhaps as few as 40 atoms/cm3 could be CCD detected
at the far end of the sodium trail.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26oct_1.htm
Without our having a surface deployed probe taking various direct
measurements, as such we can't possibly begin to imagine what that
surface environment situation would have looked and felt like up close
and personal. Of course I've tried several times to suggest we need
this sort of raw data and, lo and behold each and every time the
mainstream status quo of need-to-know and otherwise sharing their usual
taboo/nondisclosure flak was insurmountable. Thus all of the usenet
from hell, the all-knowing BBC, FSA and whatever's associated with
brown-nosing NASA is continually out to lunch.
Besides the O2 that most certainly had to have been made available,
there's also Argon, Xenon, possibly a touch of CO2 plus certainly other
extremely heavy elements that wouldn't have been so easly be solar-wind
extracted, including the likes of existing Rn-222(radon) that's around
most of the time as having been naturally created by the available
Ra-226(radium) and via secondary/recoil reactions as having been solar
and cosmic contributed. Therefore, our moon is not nearly as devoid of
an atmosphere as we'd thought. As for deploying the modern day micro
probes of perhaps as little as one kg becomes quite doable, with
somewhat larger deployments accomplished as each of these highly
affordable efforts produces a better understanding of what other
methods can be achieved within such a thin but otherwise available
atmosphere that's actually fairly respectable considering the 1/6th
gravity factor.
According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."
"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy, but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the
heavier ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier
molecules were not present."
"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4>
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average
260m/s which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules
(m=28) on the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a
fifth of the escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all
molecules travel at the average velocity, some travel faster and leak
away. The Earth isn't able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they
average about a fifth of Earth's escape velocity."
"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."
Of course, for building and sustaining that sort of a radon atmosphere,
as for that to happen the moon requires having a good amount of
background cash of radioactive elements including Radium(Ra-226) as for
generating the Rn-222 gas, although a good amount of raw solar influx
and thus secondary/recoil reactions might otherwise accomplish this
same task, that plus the matter of accepted fact that our moon has been
identified as being considerably more radioactive than Earth shouldn't
have gone to waste.
Fortunately for us humans, the notions of terraforming our moon into
being livable (at least within seems doable), radium (Ra-226) half life
is only good for 1600 years and thus the radon as having been generated
shouldn't be around forever. In fact, if our icy proto-moon wasn't so
gosh darn newish, as such most of the radioactive raw elements simply
would have become spent and thus faded away by now, that is for other
than whatever's continually solar and cosmic contributed and supposedly
responsible for creating the amounts of sequestered He3, of which
someone eventually needs to go there and process for obtaining that
nifty substance before Earth runs itself entirely out of
fossil/geological based energy and we manage to turn our Earth into
another Mars.