Re: Conspiracy theory! WAS: Water discovered on the moon, of allplaces.
Lookout
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:30:45 -0600, G. Morgan <usenet...@gawab.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Hey Richard, I bought some more newsgroups on to let them see if your theory
>>is correct, or a conspiracy.
>
>Oh fucking thanks a lot, Sherlock. Like we *REALLY* want to have more
>CT nutters polluting the sci.space groups. It's bad enough that we've
>got senile screwballs, total retards and even a couple of Jew-hating
>Anti-semite neo-Nazis to deal with, and now you send over another
>idiot who obviously was clusterfracked by all his aunts and uncles
>when he was a baby, and is now concocting bullshit conspiracy theories
>in angst over his inability to get over the fact that he could have
>made more off of letting his relatives molest him than a bag of
>Tootsie Pops and a 2-liter of Mountain Dew.
>
>Thanks a lot. May your balls rot off.
ahahahahahaha
wetpixel
<usenet...@gawab.com> wrote:
> X-Posted to:
>
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sc
> i.space.station
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
> >What two factors do you need to create water?
> >Hydrogen and oxygen.
Those are the two elements you need; there are several more factors.
> >There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
Nope. You're trying to define all of space as absolutely empty, and it
is not.
More to the point, you're trying to redfine the space near a moon as
completely devoid of all material, even of debris after this impact.
That's nonsensical.
> >The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
> >expelled dust and debris.
Which, if you think about it, came from two sources: the moon's surface
and the object of impact.
It didn't have to come from the empty space, so your previous
observation is irrelevant.
> >The explosion itself provided the oxygen.
Sorry, I have to assume you are kidding. You don't think the scientists
were aware of which, and exactly how much, materials they provided in
the impact?
> >The
> >explosion is the catalyst needed to combine the hydrogen with the oxygen to
> >create water. Ergo, the minimal amount of water is produced.
> >Had they done the same experiment here on earth, they would probably get
> >the same results.
Richard, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but yes,
if they did this same experiment, they'd have found water. The Earth
does have water at it's surface.
You'd be showing something only if your conspiracy could show that on
Earth the ame experiment showed no water -- which is known not to be
true, so would show the experiment invalid.
Brian Gaff
this happening, or are you saying that the small amount of oxygen liberated
on parts which vaporised is responsible for the readings seen?
Seems to me here though that the attempt to make a vertical approach and
hence a very visible ejector cloud did not actually work. Instead the light
and heavier stuff flew off, in the main, in different directions and at a
lower angle than expected.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"G. Morgan" <usenet...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:b4fuf5tnh0r5mq4ur...@4ax.com...
> X-Posted to:
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
>>What two factors do you need to create water?
>>Hydrogen and oxygen.
>>There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
>>The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
>>expelled dust and debris. The explosion itself provided the oxygen. The
>>explosion is the catalyst needed to combine the hydrogen with the oxygen
>>to
>>create water. Ergo, the minimal amount of water is produced.
>>Had they done the same experiment here on earth, they would probably get
>>the same results.
>
BradGuth
> X-Posted to:
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
> >What two factors do you need to create water?
> >Hydrogen and oxygen.
> >There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
> >The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
> >expelled dust and debris. The explosion itself provided the oxygen. The
> >explosion is the catalyst needed to combine the hydrogen with the oxygen to
> >create water. Ergo, the minimal amount of water is produced.
> >Had they done the same experiment here on earth, they would probably get
> >the same results.
>
> Hey Richard, I bought some more newsgroups on to let them see if your theory
> is correct, or a conspiracy.
100<250 ppm h2o is really not very much water, unless you intend to
vaporize 0.1% of the moon.
Why is this a bogus topic? (NASA damage control)
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:25:44 -0600, G. Morgan <usenet_ab...@gawab.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry about that. "Richard", aka "RtS", aka "Richard the Stupid", has come up
> >with some real doozies in his day. This one is delicious. I just wanted to
> >inform the science community of what you're facing :)
>
> ...Oh, believe me, we've known what we're facing for a long time. John
> Thomas Maxson and his Challenger conspiracy, his psychotic hire-a-cop
> son Paul and his threats of legal and physical deterrent against those
> who'd dispute his father's psychotic claims, Tommy Lee Elifritz and
> his constant and incessive athiestic, racist tirades, threats of legal
> action against his detractors, and claims of total innosence in any
> wrongdoings in his postings, Brad Guth and his senile trollings, Bbo
> Hallr and his insane and illiterate prattle, "~CT" aka "Stuff4" and
> his conspiracy-laiden prattle, and "Jonathan's" constant anti-NASA
> prattle and tirades.
>
> ...We're aware of what we face. The problem is that since usenet isn't
> administered like it used to be even five years ago, it's very
> difficult to get rid of trolling trash like this unless you can catch
> them in a DCMA violation and/or posting kiddie porn. While we've no
> doubt that every single one of the trolls I've mentioned - and those I
> haven't - are guilty of at least the latter, we've yet to find the
> proof because that would require us going in search of such illegal
> and despicable material and catch them in the act of being a source.
>
> ...So the best we can do is killfile the bastards, advise everyone
> else with a whit of common sense and rationality to do the same, and
> whenever someone crossposts crap like this we hand them their heads as
> best as possible, then killfile the thread. Had we all been doing this
> from Day One, this group in particular would still be one of the most
> active, productive groups on usenet, instead of the husk it's become.
> Had usenet not been basically left to rot over the past five years of
> "downsizings" in the ranks of admins too afraid to dump paying
> customers even if they're scum worthy of nothing short of being fed to
> a pack of starving pit bulls, then we'd still have a strong, vital,
> and informative usenet. The only solace that remains is that the Hell
> that awaits is waiting for them and them alone.
>
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
And Hitler is smiling like never before. You're doing good, OM, real
good. If only OM and Hitler were in charge, everything gets better.
Gee whiz, why not go for the entire NWO thing, and just nail everyone
that pisses you off to a stick? (it obviously worked for those Zionist/
Jews, in spite of their having screwed up WW2)
~ BG
Sylvia Else
> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
>
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
>> What two factors do you need to create water?
>> Hydrogen and oxygen.
>> There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
>> The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
>> expelled dust and debris. The explosion itself provided the oxygen.
How does an explosion provide oxygen?
I suppose you could argue (highly implausibly) that the free oxygen was
under the surface, and reacted with the hydrogen as a consequence of
being liberated by the impact.
As I said, it's highly implausible, but if it occurred, that's fine.
Free oxygen is even better than water.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >And Hitler is smiling like never before. You're doing good, OM, real
> >good. If only OM and Hitler were in charge, everything gets better.
> >Gee whiz, why not go for the entire NWO thing, and just nail everyone
> >that pisses you off to a stick? (it obviously worked for those Zionist/
> >Jews, in spite of their having screwed up WW2)
>
You mist be another brown-nosed clown or devout minion of the
mainstream status quo, that thinks nothing of spewing on behalf of
NASA infomercials via blowing it out your ass. Let me guess, you're
also a republican. You do realize that our OM is every bit as
rednecked as they come.
Our NASA LCROSS team is on serious steroids and/or hard drugs, as in
cover thy butt with all the media hype, spin and eyecandy meds they
can muster, or else. Ideal food for the dysfunctional likes of OM.
They must think our president/BHO and his staff of well educated
advisers are easily snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no
return. Because guess what folks, there’s water to behold from
creating any crater, mostly because basalt always has at least 50 ppm
to begin with (<750 ppm). Secondly, keeping yourself warm is really
not a problem, as is with keeping yourself and whatever technology
cool. For those polar crater locations, Stirling energy conversions
from photons to electrons is really going to become nifty when there’s
such a terrific thermal (light to dark) differential to begin with.
Once any molecules of water/ice are freed at 3e-15 bar, it becomes
nearly explosive in how it would unavoidably react by expanding into
such an extreme vacuum, and there’s all sorts of secondary IR that
even manages to get into the deepest of those polar craters from time
to time, contributing sufficient thermal energy to boil off or rather
sublime most any raw/naked volume of ice at that extensive vacuum, not
to mention the moon itself is also radiating <22 mw/m2 of it’s
residual and/or thorium core heat (thicker polar crust has got to be
worth at least 10 mw/m2).
The 50<750 some odd PPM of water that’s sealed in surface bedrock and
crust basalt is one thing that’s likely sure enough there to behold.
However, raw/naked ice under a crystal dry layer of physically dark
carbon dust is not as likely to exist/coexist unless that moon either
isn’t very old, and/or there’s water or mineral brine that’s still
leaking out from a substantial reservoir or aquifers inside the moon.
AP / “The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only
what scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete
said.”
And yet there’s still no UV florescence imaging or public view of
those original gamma spectrum readings. So, it remains pretty much
insider and/or need-to-know business as per usual, whereas raw/naked
ice in the vacuum of space apparently doesn’t have to go by any pesky
laws of physics, or any need of independent peer review.
The LCROSS 20 meter crater is basically giving up 1e3 m3 worth of
displaced and/or partially vaporized basalt that’s mineral saturated
and supposedly containing <250 PPM water. That’s roughly <3.5e3 tonnes
worth of lunar basalt w/minerals and those ppm of water to start off
with, and by taking roughly 11% of that as having been vaporized is
perhaps what our NASA has claimed as having given off measurable
water, that such frozen basalt by eights should have. I think the
impact vaporized closer to 25% if not as great as 33%, which means the
h2o content of that basalt wasn’t as great as 100 PPM, but then who’s
really counting since ordinary physics and easily peered replicated
science does not matter.
I would tend to favor that our physically dark lunar surface is about
as crystal dry as things within such a terrific vacuum environment
could ever get, though I’ll give a very remote possibility of there
being an underground artisan cache of water or mineral brine that has
been gradually venting/leaking out and into just those continually
frozen craters is at least technically possible, although it's
extremely unlikely those unavoidable h2o vapors weren't easily
detected by astronomers and their various sensitive spectrometry
methods as of at least decades ago.
Here's yet another image of the sorts of crystal dry minerals that our
moon has to offer. These hue saturations are not bogus/false colors,
just the original colors as having been enhanced on behalf of
observationology, similar to the nifty eyecandy that Hubble gets
published and accepted all the time.
Moon in color (natural but obviously saturation levels cranked up)
http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
In LRO UV fluorescence imaging, this amount of mineral hue as
secondary reflectance should be at least ten fold better yet, and a
good thousand fold better resolution when obtained from just 50 km.
With their LRO extended dynamic range, any sign of water vapor (atoms
of h2o) as coming off such a naked surface of any crater shadowed ice
would have been unavoidably unmistakable. Of course this means there
really is not such raw/naked ice to behold.
So, apparently our NASA gets to lie their public funded bitts off, and
the rest of us don't, because at roughly 100<250 ppm of what's
supposedly accessible h2o within moon basalt, as such would have only
required vaporizing a few hundred tonnes of basalt in order to provide
those 25 gallons (94+ kg) of water. In other words, at 250 ppm it
would only require vaporizing 400 tonnes out of the 3.5e3 tonnes of
basalt in order to release 100 kg of its water, along with releasing
at the very least 1000 kg of sodium (though many areas of the lunar
surface are rich or saturated in sodium to the tune of <50,000 ppm),
plus there's many kg worth of other minerals and of course there's
30,000<100,000 ppm O2 = 12<40t that shouldn't have been all that
unexpected or hard to detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total
alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3.
Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly
in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
High alumina basalts have aluminium contents of 17–19 wt% Al2O3;
boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare
feldspathoid-
rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O
contents
of 12% or more.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JE00503.shtml
"Calculation of oxygen yield (as released by hydrogen gas reduction
of ilmenite) show that (1) beneficiated basalt will provide the most
oxygen (8–10%)"
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
By vaporizing rock.
Sylvia Else
> On Nov 15, 3:42 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>> X-Posted to:
>>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
>>>> What two factors do you need to create water?
>>>> Hydrogen and oxygen.
>>>> There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
>>>> The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
>>>> expelled dust and debris. The explosion itself provided the oxygen.
>> How does an explosion provide oxygen?
>>
>> I suppose you could argue (highly implausibly) that the free oxygen was
>> under the surface, and reacted with the hydrogen as a consequence of
>> being liberated by the impact.
>>
>> As I said, it's highly implausible, but if it occurred, that's fine.
>> Free oxygen is even better than water.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> By vaporizing rock.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
> alkalis, 0.5�2.0 wt% TiO2, 5�14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3.
> Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly
> in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
>
> boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare
> feldspathoid-
> rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O
> contents
> of 12% or more.
>
> http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JE00503.shtml
> "Calculation of oxygen yield (as released by hydrogen gas reduction
> of ilmenite) show that (1) beneficiated basalt will provide the most
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / �Guth Usenet�
>
>
And the hydrogen?
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:21:57 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You mist be another brown-nosed clown or devout minion of the
> >mainstream status quo, that thinks nothing of spewing on behalf of
> >NASA infomercials via blowing it out your ass. Let me guess, you're
> >also a republican. You do realize that our OM is every bit as
> >rednecked as they come.
>
That could be what contributor "OM" stands for, as otherwise OM lost
his legs due th health reasons and literally doesn't stand for
anything except hate and revenge.
>
> I'm not a Rebublitard nor a DemoKrat. I did vote for BHO though, the thought
> of Palin being that close to "the button" makes me <shudder>.
Thank God, you're one of the few good guys.
By the way; A serious solar farm of mylar mirrors could vaporize
lunar basalt rather nicely.
At perhaps as little as one kg per 100 m2 mirror shouldn't be so
unlikely. A full tonne of such deployed mirrors is thus offering 1e5
m2 of reflected and focused solar energy into a bedrock area of
perhaps 4 m2.
At only 90% efficiency is still offering 3.4e6 w/m2, which at 3e-15
bar should vaporize something. That collective 1e5 m2 of mylar mirror
efficiency as focused down to 4 m2 should actually become worth 3.6e6
w/m2.
BradGuth
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 3:42 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >>> X-Posted to:
> >>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk,sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
> >>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:07:31 -0700, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>> Yeah and I think they are jumping to conclusions.
> >>>> What two factors do you need to create water?
> >>>> Hydrogen and oxygen.
> >>>> There is no oxygen in a vacuum. Period. Scientific fact.
> >>>> The water they discovered was not on the surface. It was in the plume of
> >>>> expelled dust and debris. The explosion itself provided the oxygen.
> >> How does an explosion provide oxygen?
>
> >> I suppose you could argue (highly implausibly) that the free oxygen was
> >> under the surface, and reacted with the hydrogen as a consequence of
> >> being liberated by the impact.
>
> >> As I said, it's highly implausible, but if it occurred, that's fine.
> >> Free oxygen is even better than water.
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > By vaporizing rock.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
> > Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly
> > in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
>
> > boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare
> > feldspathoid-
> > rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O
> > contents
> > of 12% or more.
>
> > http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JE00503.shtml
> > "Calculation of oxygen yield (as released by hydrogen gas reduction
> > of ilmenite) show that (1) beneficiated basalt will provide the most
>
> > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> And the hydrogen?
>
> Sylvia.
Yes, and especially the 3He (helium 3) shouldn't go to waste.
A serious solar farm of mylar mirrors could vaporize lunar basalt
rather nicely.
At perhaps as little as one kg per 100 m2 mirror shouldn't be so
unlikely. A full tonne of such deployed mirrors is thus offering 1e5
m2 of reflected and focused solar energy into a bedrock area of
perhaps 4 m2.
At only 90% efficiency is still offering 3.4e6 w/m2, which at 3e-15
bar should vaporize something. That collective 1e5 m2 of mylar mirror
efficiency as focused down to 4 m2 should actually become worth 3.6e6
w/m2.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Jonathan
<John Hickam> wrote in message
news:pckuf51fgi0om6qma...@4ax.com...
>>is correct, or a conspiracy.
>
> CT nutters polluting the sci.space groups. It's bad enough that we've
> got senile screwballs, total retards and even a couple of Jew-hating
> Anti-semite neo-Nazis to deal with, and now you send over another
> idiot who obviously was clusterfracked by all his aunts and uncles
> when he was a baby, and is now concocting bullshit conspiracy theories
> in angst over his inability to get over the fact that he could have
> made more off of letting his relatives molest him than a bag of
> Tootsie Pops and a 2-liter of Mountain Dew.
And if you think that press conference doesn't deserve criticism, you're
not paying attention.
On Oct 16, LCROSS issued this statement wrt any future science
releases.
"Any new information will undergo the normal scientific review process
and will be released as soon as it is available."
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/news/arc-101609.htm
Which strongly implies months waiting for various research papers
to be created and released.
Then on Nov 13 comes the "Big Announcement"! "Water on the Moon"!
With scientists holding up empty gallon jugs, like some dog-and-pony-show
exclaiming "We are blown away by the data returned."
NOW, is holding up empty gallon jugs of water in front of tv cameras
considered the "normal scientific review process".....pahlease!
But then they slip in this little detail......" "The concentration and
distribution
of water and other substances requires further analysis,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html
It's the CONCENTRATION that matters! Not the fact they can find the
signature of water, but if it's ENOUGH to justify a colony.
This 'scientific' discovery is a prime example of politicizing science.
This 'science' release was meant to do one thing, and one thing only, to help
save the Moon shot from being canceled.
Politicizing is the nice term for it, conspiracy would be the harsher
description. But conspiracy isn't appropriate only because the
moon shot isn't illegal. However, it is an exceptionally foolish
waste of taxpayer money, very precious time and talent.
The plain fact this press conference was designed to further
an unwise, if not corrupt, program makes the term 'conspiracy'
very very close to being an appropriate description.
Either way it still stinks to high heaven.
Jonathan
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And Hitler is smiling like never before. You're doing good, OM, real
>>good. If only OM and Hitler were in charge, everything gets better.
>>Gee whiz, why not go for the entire NWO thing, and just nail everyone
>>that pisses you off to a stick? (it obviously worked for those Zionist/
>>Jews, in spite of their having screwed up WW2)
>
And I'm the John with the anti-Nasa tirades. But OM is so stupid he
doesn't realize I'm the most pro-NASA person around.
What I want is an end to the stupid idea of spending the next
generation or two, and all of NASA's money, to return four men
to the moon for a week at a time.
What I want is to go back to the program NASA was starting just
before Bush came into town and killed it.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
A program which could make America the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
Eliminating our primary national weakness. While solving climate change
at the same time. But maybe four people kicking around some
moon rocks is the better idea...right.
But OM uses a tired old tactic. It's like calling someone that
disagrees with foreign policy 'unpatriotic. If I disagree with
returning to the Moon, and prefer Space Solar Power, so I'm
anti-NASA.
OM's list is really a list of all the people that don't believe and act
just as he does. He's our ng fascist and self appointed censor.
Every ng has one or two.
>
BradGuth
> "G. Morgan" <usenet_ab...@gawab.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ihj1g5ps4pgnppjh0...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:13:04 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>And Hitler is smiling like never before. You're doing good, OM, real
> >>good. If only OM and Hitler were in charge, everything gets better.
> >>Gee whiz, why not go for the entire NWO thing, and just nail everyone
> >>that pisses you off to a stick? (it obviously worked for those Zionist/
> >>Jews, in spite of their having screwed up WW2)
>
> > You must be in the "Anti-Semite neo-Nazi" category John wrote of.
>
> And I'm the John with the anti-Nasa tirades. But OM is so stupid he
> doesn't realize I'm the most pro-NASA person around.
> What I want is an end to the stupid idea of spending the next
> generation or two, and all of NASA's money, to return four men
> to the moon for a week at a time.
>
> What I want is to go back to the program NASA was starting just
> before Bush came into town and killed it.
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
>
> A program which could make America the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
> Eliminating our primary national weakness. While solving climate change
> at the same time. But maybe four people kicking around some
> moon rocks is the better idea...right.
>
> But OM uses a tired old tactic. It's like calling someone that
> disagrees with foreign policy 'unpatriotic. If I disagree with
> returning to the Moon, and prefer Space Solar Power, so I'm
> anti-NASA.
>
> OM's list is really a list of all the people that don't believe and act
> just as he does. He's our ng fascist and self appointed censor.
> Every ng has one or two.
SSP or whatever's similar is a good direction. However, our moon can
be mostly robotic mined once we develop an actual lunar lander with
roughly ten fold as much capability as those supposedly flawless
Apollo landers.
Apparently our NASA gets to lie their public funded butts off, and the
rest of us don't, because at roughly 100<250 ppm of what's supposedly
accessible h2o within moon basalt, as such would have only required
vaporizing a few hundred tonnes of basalt in order to provide those 25
gallons (94+ kg) of water. In other words, at 250 ppm it would only
require vaporizing 400 tonnes out of the 3.5e3 tonnes of basalt in
order to release 100 kg of its water, along with releasing at the
very least 1000 kg of sodium (though many areas of the lunar surface
are rich or saturated in sodium to the tune of <50,000 ppm), plus
there's many kg worth of other minerals and of course there's
30,000<100,000 ppm O2 = 12<40t that shouldn't have been all that
unexpected or hard to detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt
Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total
alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3.
Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly
in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
High alumina basalts have aluminium contents of 17–19 wt% Al2O3;
boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare
feldspathoid-
rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O
contents
of 12% or more.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95JE00503.shtml
"Calculation of oxygen yield (as released by hydrogen gas reduction
of ilmenite) show that (1) beneficiated basalt will provide the most
oxygen (8–10%)"
Of course there’s good old hydrogen and helium 3 (3He at 10 ppb) that
need not be wasted.
“The energy content of 3He is: E(3He)= 2e8 kWh/kg-1 ... If Fusion is
the process of obtaining energy by adding things together” could be
interpreted as worth <$2.5M/kg, especially as fossil duels are made
spendy or illegal to use unless their exhaust emissions are fully
certified as green, and average consumer cost of energy hits $0.25/
kwhr
A serious solar farm of mylar mirrors could vaporize lunar basalt
rather nicely, especially in that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
BradGuth
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:24:23 -0500, "Jonathan" <Homé@Again.net> wrote:
> >And I'm the John with the anti-Nasa tirades.
>
> pathetic crap.
>
> OM
Just because you like all of those nasty folks that seem so often
Jewish, doesn't mean that we have to.
~ BG
Jonathan
"OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
news:bp44g5pfsdu981jkl...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:24:23 -0500, "Jonathan" <Hom�@Again.net> wrote:
>
>>And I'm the John with the anti-Nasa tirades.
>
> pathetic crap.
I don't recall making any such remarks, could you back up that
accusation? Just once could you back up what you say?
And I thought you were killfiling me?
>
> OM
>
> --
>
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
Jonathan
<Smooth Going> wrote in message
news:2a44g5hqjgjnbpbpq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:10:38 -0500, "Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote:
>
>>Either way it still stinks to high heaven.
>
>
I don't get it
Jonathan
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:21:57 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You mist be another brown-nosed clown or devout minion of the
>>mainstream status quo, that thinks nothing of spewing on behalf of
>>NASA infomercials via blowing it out your ass. Let me guess, you're
>>also a republican. You do realize that our OM is every bit as
>>rednecked as they come.
>
>
> I'm not a Rebublitard nor a DemoKrat. I did vote for BHO though, the thought
> of Palin being that close to "the button" makes me <shudder>.
Why? She could see Russia from her house!
>
BradGuth
> "OM" <o...@sci.space.history> wrote in message
>
> news:bp44g5pfsdu981jkl...@4ax.com...
>
>
> >>And I'm the John with the anti-Nasa tirades.
>
> > ...And the anti-Semite rants. Don't forget your contributions to that
> > pathetic crap.
>
> I don't recall making any such remarks, could you back up that
> accusation? Just once could you back up what you say?
>
> And I thought you were killfiling me?
>
>
>
> > OM
OM has no problems with telling lies and leaving out information that
doesn't agree with his mindset.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:51:34 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >At only 90% efficiency is still offering 3.4e6 w/m2, of which at 3e-15
> >bar should vaporize something. That collective 1e5 m2 of mylar mirror
> >efficiency as focused down to 4 m2 should actually become worth 3.6e6
> >w/m2.
>
Let us assume we've got this mostly robotic bedrock vaporizing thing
up and running.
How many tonnes per hour of basalt can be vaporized at 3.6 MW/m2 and
3e-15 bar(vacuum)?
Remember that by day our physically dark lunar surface of basalt is
already at 400+K and receiving 1.36 kw/m2 to start with.
~ BG
BradGuth
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:03:59 -0600, OM <o...@sci.space.history> wrote:
> >...If you haven't figured it out by now, this is Brad Guth, aka
> >Guthball, Guthy Guth, and Smegmabreath. A quick Google search will
> >turn up thousands of posts over a ten-year period on various
> >newsgroups, all stuffed to the gills with bullshit conspiracy theories
> >and wild claims of life on Venus. Note that when the senile bastard
> >arrived, he had two pictures that he claimed showed signs of life on
> >Venus. One was of Mars, the other was of a closeup of a cheese pizza.
>
> >He's basically just a bigoted, retarded, senile old sack of trailer
> >trash literally living in a trailer. We tracked him down quite a while
> >back and an aerial shot of his location shows his hovel as being a
> >run-down trailer set in a backwoods lot. And to think our welfare and
> >SSI dollars are paying for this pathetic maladroit's internet
> >access...
>
> Interesting....
>
> <subscribe>
> sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
>
> This looks like fun.
OM needs a whole lot better satellite image than that. A while back I
even posted my areal address (4410 SE Nelson RD Olalla WA 98359).
Apparently those North Koren spy satellites that OM uses are not as
reliable as they claim.
~ BG
Graystar
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:Q9idnWyz5Jf_8J7W...@giganews.com...
Exactly. She COULDN'T miss!
LOL!
http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!
BradGuth
> <John Hickam> wrote in message
>
> news:pckuf51fgi0om6qma...@4ax.com...
>
>
> It's the CONCENTRATION that matters! Not the fact they can find the
> signature of water, but if it's ENOUGH to justify a colony.
>
> This 'scientific' discovery is a prime example of politicizing science.
> This 'science' release was meant to do one thing, and one thing only, to help
> save the Moon shot from being canceled.
>
> Politicizing is the nice term for it, conspiracy would be the harsher
> description. But conspiracy isn't appropriate only because the
> moon shot isn't illegal. However, it is an exceptionally foolish
> waste of taxpayer money, very precious time and talent.
>
> The plain fact this press conference was designed to further
> an unwise, if not corrupt, program makes the term 'conspiracy'
> very very close to being an appropriate description.
>
> Either way it still stinks to high heaven.
Stinking up heaven seems to be a favorite NASA pastime, as well as a
long standing Jewish tradition.
Where's the other 99.9% of the LRO science?
~ BG