The moon and Tom Hanks...'we don't need to go back there again.'
Jonathan
Tom Hanks Hopes To Recapture Wonderment
At Lunar Triumph
"Once humankind has been some place and found it
entrancing, they always go back," says Hanks, the
film's producer. "I think in the history of the human
race, the moon has been the first place we've gone to
and said, 'OK, we don't need to go back there again.'"
And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml
Brad Guth
news:EKSuh.34064$Ts....@bignews6.bellsouth.net
> And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
>
> "Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml
Because it was all nothing but a big ass and fully perpetrated cold-war
lie to begin with, and we wouldn't want to look any more heathen
pathetic than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has already
accomplished.
If we're going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours,
as such we'll need the following:
A fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit
computer fly-by-wire driven) reaction thrusters, and a few (at least
three) powerful momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient
deorbit and down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better
off than a wussy 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload that had nearly a 30%
inert GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare
tonnes of ice loading).
You folks do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket lander
as pilot rated and crew safe and sane, not even in R&D prototype format.
There's still time to get in on that NASA contest, of demonstrating the
first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
BTW; their frail DNA and even all of that Kodak film could have used a
minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding, though 100 g/cm2 would have been
a whole lot safer for keeping their mission dosage under 50 rads.
Having a cache of banked bone marrow on Earth as their plan-B would also
have been a damn wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads
per EVA should have been well past their bone marrow's point of no
return.
BTW; in whatever's your best 3D simulator format, where's Venus as of
missions A11, A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Landy
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8bf2531dbffb73356df...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:EKSuh.34064$Ts....@bignews6.bellsouth.net
>
>> And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
>>
>> "Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml
>
> Because it was all nothing but a big ass and fully perpetrated cold-war
> lie to begin with, and we wouldn't want to look any more heathen
> pathetic than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has already
> accomplished.
You are such a fuckin' idiot it's difficult to belive you made it past the
age of 5 without killing yourself -
or someone else doing it for you.
cheers
Bill
Brad Guth
news:ephi5e$dkq$1...@news-02.connect.com.au
As I've said this before; If we're ever going to walk upon that
physically dark and nasty moon of ours, as such we'll need the following
basics for an earthshine illuminated mission:
A fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit
computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those reaction thrusters (besides
the modulated rated thrusters, this should only require butt loads of
nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast rad-hard computers),
and incorporating a few (at least three) powerful momentum reaction
wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and down-range energy
reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a wussy 60:1 ratio
of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert GLOW to start off
with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes of ice loading).
You folks do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket lander
as pilot rated and crew safe and sane, not even in R&D prototype format.
However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest, of
demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
BTW; On behalf of a relatively short term worth of defending their
frail DNA and even all of that Kodak film could have used a minimum of
50 g/cm2 worth of shielding, though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole
lot safer for keeping their mission dosage under 50 rads. Having a
cache of banked bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also
have been a damn wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads
per EVA should have been well past their bone marrow's point of no
return.
BTW No.2; in whatever's your best 3D simulator format, where's Venus as
of missions A11, A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)
What's stopping the very same solar and cosmic flak from collecting upon
and/or penetrating into the moon, as otherwise collects within our
magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?
Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon itself sort of
outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and hold onto such
nasty stuff.
In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention having those local gamma and
pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to deal with.
At any one time it was technically impossible for any such EVA to have
not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2, and of
course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the physically dark
and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the DNA/RNA frail eye
could see from being 100+ km off the deck, and that's one hell of a
solar/cosmic and unavoidably secondary/recoil worth of TBI exposure to
deal with, wouldn't you say?
-
NON: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."
They actually do not manage very well at all, whereas ISS EVAs tend to
be relatively short and they still tend to devour their 50 rad per
mission and subsequently impact upon their career 500 rad dosage limits
real fast, and at that they have to avoid the SAA-05 contour like the
worst known plague. The solar wind that's diverted by those nifty
though lethal Van Allen belts do a fairly good job of defending ISS from
the naked trauma of solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself
doesn't hardly represent any significant density or amount of
secondary/recoil m2 compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's
existing for the moon landing and EVAs, along with as much as 3.14e8 m2
worth of exposure to all that's reactive and/or radioactive being
entirely possible. ISS is also nearly 50% shielded from whatever's
cosmic via Earth, in that because of Earth's thin but extensive enough
atmosphere is hardly the least bit reactive like our naked moon.
Orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor
is it cool.
There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like trail of some 900,000 km), but
apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the deck
as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of gamma
and hard-X-rays. Just the secondary IR/FIR has got to be downright
mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how efficiently our
moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of fact that it
has to get rid of all whatever it receives, which means that a good 50%
of the solar influx is getting returned to the same half side of space
that a mission orbiting command module has to survive while getting
summarily roasted from both directions.
Jonathan
> news:EKSuh.34064$Ts....@bignews6.bellsouth.net
>
> > And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
> >
> > "Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml
>
> Because it was all nothing but a big ass and fully perpetrated cold-war
> lie to begin with, and we wouldn't want to look any more heathen
> pathetic than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) has already
> accomplished.
>
> If we're going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of ours,
> as such we'll need the following:
>
> A fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit
> computer fly-by-wire driven) reaction thrusters, and a few (at least
> three) powerful momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient
> deorbit and down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better
> off than a wussy 60:1 ratio of rocket/payload that had nearly a 30%
> inert GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare
> tonnes of ice loading).
Nah, we don't need any of that stuff. It's like those bridges
to nowhere. It doesn't really matter where it's built, what
it does or how well it works. The point is how much taxpayer
money can we get our hands on, and for how long.
That's the bottom line. Any new science they happen
to stumble upon along the way is more by accident
then anything else.
Certainly, in this case, not by design.
s
zzbu...@netscape.net
On Jan 27, 8:09 pm, "Jonathan" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The Magic Of The Moon
> Tom Hanks Hopes To Recapture Wonderment
> At Lunar Triumph
>
> "Once humankind has been some place and found it
> entrancing, they always go back," says Hanks, the
> film's producer. "I think in the history of the human
> race, the moon has been the first place we've gone to
> and said, 'OK, we don't need to go back there again.'"
>
> And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
>
> "Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
The answer.
We didn't go to the moon the first
to fund idiots from PBS, Grumman's moron Theatre, and Cannes.
Since on the second go around
we bringing millions of robots and particle beams.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtml
Brad Guth
> Nah, we don't need any of that stuff. It's like those bridges
> to nowhere. It doesn't really matter where it's built, what
> it does or how well it works. The point is how much taxpayer
> money can we get our hands on, and for how long.
>
> That's the bottom line. Any new science they happen
> to stumble upon along the way is more by accident
> then anything else.
>
> Certainly, in this case, not by design.
Now that's the truth and nothing but the truth, as I agree 100% that
it's all about the money, just like our mutually perpetrated cold wars
were nothing but a global ruse/sting of fleecing our century.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
Instead of the daunting task of accomplishing the moon itself, we should
go for taking the moon's L1 because, that's entirely doable and
extremely valuable as a space depot and science platform.
I've edited and hopefully improved upon the following rant:
As I've shared this one before; If we're ever going to walk upon that
physically dark and nasty moon of ours that's via gravity tidal energy
and a touch of IR/FIR keeping our environment as so anti-ice-age extra
warm, as such we'll need the following basics for an earthshine
illuminated mission that'll most likely demand some banked bone marrow
and possibly a few spare stem cells in order to survive the mission
gauntlet.
They'll need a fully mascon mapped moon, plus fully modulated (at least
8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of those fuel consuming reaction
thrusters (besides their modulated rated thrusters, this should only
require butt loads of nifty sensors and a minimum of four extremely fast
rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a few (at least three) powerful
momentum reaction wheels, as well as having sufficient deorbit and
down-range energy reserves, and something a whole lot better off than a
wussy 60:1 ratio of primary rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert
GLOW to start off with (that's not even including whatever spare tonnes
of inital ice loading).
You folks do realize there's still no such proven fly-by-rocket lander
as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane, not even in R&D
prototype format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA
contest of demonstrating the first such prototype fly-by-rocket lander.
Unfortunately, thus far every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't
worked out according to plan. Perhaps what they need are those smart
Jewish Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work with
way back in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.
BTW; On behalf of a relatively short exposure worth of defending their
frail DNA and even all of that radiation sensitive Kodak film could have
used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding, though 100 g/cm2 would
have been a whole lot safer for keeping their mission dosage under 50
rads. Their having a personal cache of banked bone marrow back on Earth
as their plan-B would also have been a damn wise thing to do, especially
since the hundreds of rads per EVA should have been well past their bone
marrow's point of no return.
BTW No.2; Since there's no argument as to the DR(dynamic range) of
their Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our physically dark
moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your best 3D simulator
format, where's Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16? (from EVA or from
orbit)
What if anything is stopping the very same solar and cosmic energy plus
whatever flak from collecting upon and/or penetrating into the moon, as
otherwise collects within our magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?
Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?
In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2, not to mention each of those square meters
having those local gamma and pesky hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to
share, and for yourself in that wussy moonsuit to deal with.
At any one time it was technically impossible for any such lunar surface
EVA to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being 100+ km off the deck, and that's
one hell of a solar/cosmic and unavoidably secondary/recoil worth of TBI
exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-
NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."
From what I can learn, they/ISS actually do NOT manage very well at all,
whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short and those EVAs still tend
to devour into their 50 rad per mission and subsequently impact upon
their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast, and at that they have to
avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known plague. The solar wind
that's diverted by those nifty though lethal Van Allen belts do
accomplish a fairly good job of defending ISS from the naked trauma of
solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself doesn't hardly
represent significant density or any amount of secondary/recoil square
meters compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's existing for the
moon landing and EVAs, along with easily receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2
worth of exposure to all that's reactive and/or radioactive as being
entirely possible.
A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable density
that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently isn't
the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise seriously outdated, not to mention way under-shielded for
long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having
somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters
of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within
58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon
that's providing the not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are only a touch worse off by
lunar day, is simply a downright deficient document about sharing upon
all the positive science and habitat/depot considerations for others
utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.
As for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't
exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit.
There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that reaches out
past 9r (not to mention the comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km),
but apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the
deck as to significantly moderate the incoming or outgoing trauma of
gamma and hard-X-rays. Therefore, just the secondary IR/FIR has got to
be downright mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how
efficiently our moon reflects the IR and FIR spectrum, and the matter of
fact that it has to get rid of all of whatever it receives, which means
that a good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same
sunny half side of space that a given mission orbiting its command
module has to survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI
traumatised from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine
and of good old cosmic whatever else to boot.
On behalf of moderating whatever's incoming as well as secondary/recoil
outgoing radiation, what our naked moon environment needs rather badly
is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any sort, even if it's
mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
Igor
On Jan 28, 1:02 am, "Brad Guth" <bradg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Jonathan" <b...@bellsouth.net> wrote in messagenews:EKSuh.34064$Ts....@bignews6.bellsouth.net
>
> > And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.
>
> > "Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
> >http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/23/eveningnews/main881421.shtmlBecause it was all nothing but a big ass and fully perpetrated cold-war
Cold compresses, sir. And plenty of them.
Brad Guth
Moving our existing ISS off to Venus L2 seems perfectly doable, although
placing ISS at our moon's L1 would likely melt that sucker and otherwise
gamma and hard-X-ray most everything on the spot. It seems our moon's
L1 is not exactly ISS end-user friendly.
Venus L2 is actually a bit on the cool side of things, whereas our
moon's L1 (roughly 58,000 km away from the moon) is smoking hot and
otherwise downright nasty most of the time, of which ISS simply isn't
thermally suited nor otherwise sufficiently shielded. The nighttime
season of Venus is also a little geothermally hot to the touch, but it's
not technically too hot to manage, especially since there's unlimited
local energy to burn (sort of speak).
Unfortunately, I see that our warm and fuzzy Mailgate/Usenet spooks of
stealth moderators have made the subtopic "Corner Cube Reflectors on the
Moon" or most any other negative NASA subtopic go away. I wonder what
the heck there is to hide, or why Mailgate/Usenet can't accommodate
subtopics as intentional diversions caused by so many others.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/browse_frm/thread/2759c33f55df3110/c61fa0709905d932?lnk=st&q=moon+hoax+apollo&rnum=46#c61fa0709905d932
Corner Cube Reflectors on the Moon, or simply a given butt load of beer
cans dumped onto that physically dark and nasty deck via robotics or of
whatever impact deployment isn't proof or any other form of replicated
science on behalf of having walked on that moon. Sorry about that.
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources (another stealth moderated to death
Mailgate topic)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_frm/thread/d0561ec5425b2d07/e7ec2528569a1d6f?lnk=st&q=moon+hoax+apollo&rnum=47#e7ec2528569a1d6f
Of course, now Mailgate is entirely blocking most all of their
"Mailgate: Message not available" topics, as though the crapolla of
truth is hitting their really big infomercial damage control fan.
I see that our warm and fuzzy Mailgate/Usenet spooks have also made the
topic "Laser off the Moon" vanish into less than thin air, as yet
another one of those "Mailgate: Message not available" index listings.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/d00ba8dbddd4daa4/28408b5c2de5160d?lnk=st&q=moon+hoax+apollo&rnum=37#28408b5c2de5160d
In fact, most all of "rec.org.mensa" is becoming rather
anti-topic/author worthy of being extensively taboo/nondisclosure, as in
banished into "Mailgate: Message not available" status quo.
It also seems as though our Old Testament thumping faith based
scientists are simply paranoid about damn near everything that rocks
their status quo good ship LOLLIPOP, including by their own shadows. At
least terraforming our moon or simply digging into that salty sucker for
obtaining a safe underground habitat is technically doable from within
our own back yard of known expertise and resources, and best of all,
with a damn good telescope as monitoring such things from our moon's L1
is how we the badly bleeding taxpayers can manage to keep a close eye
upon where each and every one of our hard earned dollar is going.
The ongoing notions of utlizing our moon as one of the supposed
"Footsteps to Mars", sorry to say my ass, whereas I'm especially going
naysay postal down on this one, especially since we can't seem to mange
the few and affordable steps on behalf of accomplishing our moon's L1,
much less those rather spendy and somewhat lethal steps upon our naked
moon.
-
For your continuing entertainment, I've further edited and hopefully
improved upon the following rant, as to what I and others should care
the most about:
Here's a little something extra special for Discovery Communications
and/or GOOGLE/NOVA to ponder their pay-per-infomercial spewing way
through. In other words, if I could pay as well as MI/NSA~NASA, they'd
gladly produce whatever as though it was the one and only holy grail
truth on Earth.
Instead of our going for the absolutely daunting and unavoidably time
comsuming as well as spendy task of our accomplishing the moon itself,
perhaps instead we or perhaps China should simply go for taking the
moon's L1 because, at least that's entirely doable and extremely
valuable as a given space depot and multitasking science platform.
As I've often shared this one before:
If we're ever going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of
ours, that's via gravity tidal energy and a touch of secondary IR/FIR
keeping our environment as so anti-ice-age extra warm, as such we'll
need the following basics for an earthshine illuminated mission that'll
most likely demand some banked bone marrow and possibly a few spare stem
cells in order to survive the mission gauntlet of what walking on our
moon should represent.
In order to accomplish the moon, and continue to live the good life in
order to tell about it, as such they'll need a fully mascon mapped moon,
plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of
those fuel consuming reaction thrusters (besides their modulated rated
thrusters, this should only require butt loads of nifty sensors and a
minimum of four extremely fast rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a
few (at least three) powerful momentum reaction wheels, as well as
having sufficient deorbit and down-range energy reserves, and of
something a whole lot better off than a wussy 60:1 ratio of primary
rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert GLOW to start off with
(that's not even including whatever spare tonnes of inital ice loading).
> Geoffrey A. Landis:
>Let me emphasize, the human lander is by far the hardest part of the
>Mars mission. A vehicle for getting down to the surface and back up
>again is the one piece that we have to develop from scratch.
>Everything else is, more or less, stuff we can put together from
>pieces that already have been developed.
Geoffrey A. Landis knows the truth, however the rest of you folks that
are out there in Usenet's dumbfounded land, of snookered fools and
village idiots, should by now realize there's still no such proven
fly-by-rocket lander as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane
for accomplishing our extremely nearby moon, not even in R&D prototype
format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest of
hopefully some smart group of fly-by-rocket wizards demonstrating the
first such prototype fly-by-rocket landers. Unfortunately, thus far
every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't worked out according to
plan, but I do believe we're finely getting close to accomplishing that
critical goal. Perhaps what they need are a few of those smart Jewish
Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work with way back
in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.
BTW; On behalf of a relatively short mission exposure worth of
defending their frail DNA and especially all of that radiation sensitive
Kodak film could have used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding,
though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole lot safer for keeping their TBI
mission dosage under 50 rads. Their having a personal cache of banked
bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also have been a damn
wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads per EVA should
have been well past their bone marrow's point of no return.
BTW No.2; Since there's no possible argument as to the DR(dynamic
range) of their Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our
physically dark moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your
best 3D simulator format, where the heck was Venus as of missions A11,
A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit)
What if anything is stopping or in any way diverting the very same solar
and cosmic energy plus whatever's physical flak from collecting upon
and/or reacting and even penetrating into the moon, as for what
otherwise collects within our magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?
Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?
In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right at you from as many as each of
those surrounding 3.14e8 m2 can manage to spare, not to mention each of
those square meters having their fair share of local gamma and pesky
hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to share and share alike, and as for
yourself in that wussy moonsuit to deal with.
At any one time it was technically impossible for such lunar surface
EVAs to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being at 100+ km off the deck, and
that's one hell of a solar/cosmic plus unavoidably secondary/recoil
worth of TBI exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-
NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."
From what I can learn, they/ISS actually do NOT manage very well at all,
whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short and those EVAs still tend
to devour into their 50 rad per mission and subsequently impact upon
their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast, and at that they have to
avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known plague. The solar wind
that's extensively diverted by those nifty though lethal Van Allen belts
do accomplish a fairly good job of defending ISS from the otherwise L1
naked trauma of solar and cosmic influx, and besides the ISS itself
doesn't hardly represent significant density or any amount of
secondary/recoil square meters compared to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2
that's existing for the moon landing and EVAs, along with easily
receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2 worth of exposure to all that's reactive
and/or radioactive as being entirely possible.
A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable density
that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently isn't
the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise a touch outdated, not to mention way under-shielded for
long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having
somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters
of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because it's parked within
58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon
that's providing the not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation)
dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that are only a touch worse off by
lunar day, is simply a downright deficient document about sharing upon
all the positive science and habitat/depot considerations for others
utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.
As for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km isn't
exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit or even all that mascon free of all those
pesky side to side and ups and downs because for its size the moon's
gravity is so irregular (possibly suggesting a badly distorted hallow
core).
There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that shines only
at 589 nm and reaches out past 9r (not to mention the well populated
comet like sodium trail of some 900,000 km or 518r), but apparently it's
not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the source of that sodium
being the lunar deck, as to significantly moderate the incoming or
outgoing trauma of gamma and hard-X-rays.
Therefore, perhaps just the primary plus secondary IR/FIR that's good
enough to vaporise sodium out of our moon has got to be downright
mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how efficiently our
moon reflects those IR and FIR spectrums, and the matter of fact that it
has to get rid of all of whatever energy it receives, which means that a
good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same sunny half
side of space that a given mission orbiting its command module has to
survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI traumatised
from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine and of good
old cosmic whatever else to boot.
On behalf of a future lunar environment moderating whatever's incoming
as well as unavoidably of secondary/recoil that's outgoing radiation,
what our physically dark and naked moon environment needs rather badly
is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any sort, even if it's
mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
Brad Guth
news:1170017443.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> Cold compresses, sir. And plenty of them.
In other words, you've got absolutely nothing on behalf of polishing the
almighty NASA/Apollo butt.
Brad Guth
> Cold compresses, sir. And plenty of them.
Your silly problem with the truth is?
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170017443.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
>
> > Cold compresses, sir. And plenty of them.
>
> Your silly problem with the truth is?
> -
What truth? All I see is a bunch of uneducated ignorant spew. And
just enough psychosis for the men in white coats.
Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go beserk
Well you left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And they're coming to take me away ha-haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and
toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind unselfish, loving deeds
Ha! Well you just wait
They'll find you yet and when they do
They'll put you in the A.S.P.C.A.
You mangy mutt
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ha haaa ho ho hee hee
To the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and
toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa!
Brad Guth
> What truth? All I see is a bunch of uneducated ignorant spew. And
> just enough psychosis for the men in white coats.
Silly naysay boy, or rather Third Reich minion, arnt you. All the
sudden the regular laws of physics and of otherwise replicated science
simply isn't good enough.
Yet you'll believe in absolutely anything our corrupt infomercial
spewing government has to say, faith based or otherwise doesn't seem to
matter.
What laws of physics and/or of science other than NASA/Apollo tells us
that we can safely goto, walk on our moon and subsequently live the good
and normal life to tell about it?
Why did the NASA/Apollo moon look exactly like a certain guano island
that was getting artificially illuminated via xenon lamp spectrum?
Where's that big old and more than sufficiently vibrant Venus as of
missions A11, A14 and A16?
Art Deco
>"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:1170267666.1...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
>
>> What truth? All I see is a bunch of uneducated ignorant spew. And
>> just enough psychosis for the men in white coats.
>
>Silly naysay boy, or rather Third Reich minion, arnt you. All the
>sudden the regular laws of physics and of otherwise replicated science
>simply isn't good enough.
Hi, Brad! Did you miss me?
>
>Yet you'll believe in absolutely anything our corrupt infomercial
>spewing government has to say, faith based or otherwise doesn't seem to
>matter.
>
>What laws of physics and/or of science other than NASA/Apollo tells us
>that we can safely goto, walk on our moon and subsequently live the good
>and normal life to tell about it?
Twelve men who returned with evidence and who talked about their
journeys.
Next stupid question?
>
>Why did the NASA/Apollo moon look exactly like a certain guano island
>that was getting artificially illuminated via xenon lamp spectrum?
>
>Where's that big old and more than sufficiently vibrant Venus as of
>missions A11, A14 and A16?
I think you've been irradiated in the head with too many photons from
staring at Sirius, Brad.
--
"To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert
88Countach
This is an excellent video series for anyone who doesn't believe
the Apollo landings were real:
Brad Guth
news:45c7654e$0$6496$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com
> This is an excellent video series for anyone who doesn't believe
> the Apollo landings were real:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
My God and freaking Christ almighty on yet another stick, you're all
sooooo impressed with YouTube's used toilet paper, as for representing
your fully subjective/conditional physics and science that oddly can't
be replicated. If that's not the best ever subjective infomercial
crapolla that's flowing uphill and/or on a seriously ugly stick, then
absolutely nothing is.
"This is a video response to Apollo 11 Real or Hoax?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
You obviously can't count frames per second, nor do the meters/second
worth of the most basic math, can you. Are all such incest cloned Jews
and Third Reich members this easily snookered and/or simply dumbfounded
past the infomercial spewed point of no return?
Great God almighty, where's good old vibrant and nearby Venus, as of
missions A11, A14 and A16? (or is that too much honest physics and
science truth to behold?)
Brad Guth
"88Countach" <rl351_KILLA...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:45c7654e$0$6496$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com
> This is an excellent video series for anyone who doesn't believe
> the Apollo landings were real:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
My God and freaking Christ almighty on yet another stick, you're all
sooooo impressed with YouTube's used toilet paper, as for representing
your fully subjective/conditional physics and science that oddly can't
be replicated. If that's not the best ever subjective infomercial
crapolla that's flowing uphill and/or on a seriously ugly stick, then
absolutely nothing is.
"This is a video response to Apollo 11 Real or Hoax?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc
You folks obviously can't count frames per second, nor do the
meters/second worth of the most basic math, can you. Are all such
incest cloned Jews and Third Reich members this easily snookered and/or
simply dumbfounded past the infomercial spewed point of no return?
Great God almighty, where's good old vibrant and nearby Venus, as of
missions A11, A14 and A16? (or is that too much honest physics and
science truth to behold?)
Any half-assed 3D simulator is what way more than proves the truth and
nothing but the truth, that we've all been badly snookered (some to
death) by those having "the right stuff".
Brad Guth
and of its L1, we simply need to keep asking; Where's Venus as of
missions A11, A14 and A16?
It seems Venus is rather unavoidably within the FOV as offered by 3D
simulators, depicted as a rather substantial item that's terribly bright
and otherwise hard if not impossible to miss, especially with an
unfiltered Kodak eye as having more than sufficient DR to work with.
GOOGLE/NOVA and the likes of Discovery Communications has always had
access to the very best of those supercomputer driven 3D simulators, and
thereby knows the truth, as have others known for the past 3+ decades.
Brad Guth
Start taking notice of all the "Mailgate: Message not accessible", of
topic pull-outs because they are such proven liars.
Besides my having an honest tonne of other questions related to our moon
and of its L1, we simply need to keep asking; Where's Venus as of
missions A11, A14 and A16?
It seems Venus is rather unavoidably situated within the FOV as offered
by 3D simulators, depicted as a rather substantial item that's actually
terribly bright and otherwise hard if not impossible to miss, especially
with an unfiltered Kodak eye as having more than sufficient DR and
film/lens resolution to work with.
GOOGLE/NOVA and the likes of Discovery Communications has always had
access to the very best of those supercomputer driven 3D simulators, and
thereby knows the honest to god truth, as have others known for the past
Art Deco
>"Jonathan" <be...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:EKSuh.34064$Ts....@bignews6.bellsouth.net
>
>Start taking notice of all the "Mailgate: Message not accessible", of
>topic pull-outs because they are such proven liars.
Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Get a real news provider, you buffoon.
>
>Besides my having an honest tonne of other questions related to our moon
There's a big fat lie.
[remaining guthdrool flushed]
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
Brad Guth
> The Magic Of The Moon
Except that we haven't quite been there, and done that moon walking
thing.
NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax
Our supposed "heroes" are apparently the very best goddam liars on
Earth, and for all of that hocus-pocus, it seems we've got less than
"the right squat" to show for it all.
It seems the truth simply isn't to be known, at least not unless over
many dead bodies.
Such as what David Sereda identified (as terrific ideas and viable
notions of UV energy usage, that first had to be obtained after being
forcibly extracted away from NASA the hard way); for best impact on this
one, you really need to obtain a copy of his books or video tapes:
http://www.ufonasa.com
My ongoing moon L1 research is just another pesky tip of our global
melting iceberg, of such honest topics getting nailed by such horrific
liars telling us lies upon lies, as that's the only good reasons for
such folks hammering my LSE-CM/ISS and tether dipole element to death.
But then there's also of what I've discovered about Venus to deal with,
as I've interpreted Venus as being very much alive and kicking (possibly
of ET kinckings), as do a few others that had previously been stalked
and summarily bashed into Usenet naysay land, and of other forums such
as NASA's official uplink.space.com forum that has been delivering their
almighty form of topic/author banishment.
These NASA/Apollo borgs and of their brown-nosed minion freaks are
therefore as bad off as it gets, for using whatever social/political
face or faith based cultism ruse that suits their ulterior motives and
hidden agendas, is simply the ongoing orchestrated status quo of what
summarily sucks and blows about America, as well as involving those
sucking up to us, or in the case of the USSR/Russia playing along for
the very same perpetrated cloak and dagger goal, of essentially their
cold-war partnership ripping off their own kind of humanity and mother
Earth for all it's worth, and then some.
We're talking about a multi-decade grand ruse/sting that's worth
$trillions per decade, and having set the potential advancement of
humanity back by at least a good century.
(what's a good century and a few million extra dead bodies, +/- a few
needless wars, worth these days?)
Brad Guth
Of our government lying puppets and of their religious puppeteering
liars are simply the well established status quo, just like in them good
old Third Reich days when the taking from others was just good all
around sportsmanship, even if it meant exterminating a few million of
their own kind.
So what's the difference, if we're still being continually lied to about
why the fuel efficient Lupo 3L turbodiesel and the Audi A2 are not
getting imported?
It seems that now these pesky Usenet MIB are into diverting if not
shutting down as much of my access to Mailgate/Usenet as possible, as
though somehow that's a viable tactic that's going to alter the truth
and nothing but the truth, and thus somehow save thy infomercial spewing
butts. Keeping such hot topics as this one off their publicly accessed
index page is also another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.
Perhaps Usenet needs a new robo-moderation policy of not allowing any
truths to being shared.
In addition to all that's clearly ongoing as having been officially
MI/NSA orchestrated as taboo/nondisclosure (damage-control) about most
anything Venus, it seems there's still more bad news on the event
horizon that we can all use about our silly moon, which for damm good
reasons hasn't quite been walked upon.
NASA insiders expose Apollo Hoax / banished from Mailgate
If these pro-NASA folks accept their own fundamental notions that our
warm and fuzzy NASA/Apollo expertise have photographed our moon's
physically dark terrain along with mother Earth as coexisting within the
same FOV, and especially interesting is of their Kodak film's DR(dynamic
range) as having rather easily recorded portions of our dark oceans that
are worth an albedo of perhaps 0.1 (entirely similar enough as to the
moon itself), whereas the absolute impressive and somewhat blue/violet
peak spectrum as representing the nearby vibrance of Venus should have
been unavoidably recorded as well. Especially well recorded via those
unfiltered optics that should otherwise have been nearly if not
overloaded with such a gauntlet of all those extra near-UV and UV-a
spectrums worth of photons as having reacted rather nicely with those
highly reflective clouds, which offers us the visual albedo of 0.7~0.8
to work with, whereas the actual peak solar spectrum energy and roughly
reflecting 75% of that 4 kw/m2 is what their naked and unfiltered Kodak
eye had to deal with.
Yet lo and behold, not even from orbit or otherwise from those supposed
EVAs upon the deck had there once been any sign of Venus, much less of
any other significant planets, as well as never once accommodating the
bluish-white vibrant speck of the Sirius star system, all of which were
well within the DR(dynamic range) of those unfiltered Kodak moments, yet
as though such entirely significant items that should have been easily
recorded were never once to be seen (especially odd as of those
NASA/Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16).
As I've often stipulated before, that most any interactive 3D solar
system simulator puts Venus smack within good EVA obtained views of at
least those three missions (always within each of their command module's
orbital view), and I might as well further add, that we have those free
cellphone cameras with apparently far better DR and of a wider spectrum
capability than what our newest MESSENGER mirror optics and spendy 14+db
CCD could apparently muster, as proof-positive via their flyby of Earth
which only provided us with a rather naked looking and otherwise
somewhat pastel view of Earth, w/o even so much as once accommodating
our physically dark moon, much less having shared upon any other
significant planets or stars that simply had to be there, yet all such
other items were getting artificially made as invisible/stealth as were
all of those Muslim WMD.
Remember that starshine as well as earthshine upon the moon is
absolutely vibrant to the unfiltered Kodak eye that's far more sensitive
to having recorded such near-UV and UV-a spectrums than our human eye,
which can't hardly if even detect, not to mention those pesky gamma and
hard-X-ray spectrums of which that moon of our's is absolutely chuck
full of such TBI(total body irradiation) dosage that's simply much worse
off than any lethal hot zone within our Van Allen belts, and that's
still not even including upon all of the continual thermal trauma of
their having to survive those double IR/FIR spectrums that also
coexisted, as coming at their naked moonsuit from nearly all surrounding
directions in addition to whatever sol was directly contributing.
That physically dark and somewhat salty moon of ours is what's actually
a darn good IR/FIR reflector, and otherwise represents a rather piss
poor UV reflector because, such UV energy often gets absorbed and/or
interacts as creating secondary/recoil photons of the [UV black light
generated] near-blue spectrum. Of course the solar and cosmic influx is
what also represents lethal buttloads of having generated those
secondary/recoil photons of gamma and hard-X-rays, with zilch worth of
any attenuation from all possible directions, meaning that your wussy
moonsuit is surrounded by an absolute minimum lethal gauntlet of 3.14e6
m2 that's contributing the full secondary spectrum worth of whatever's
downright nasty if not lethal to your frail DNA, as well as continually
impacting each and every physically more than boiling role of all that
sensitive Kodak film.
>Wayne Throop:
>If you substitute venus for earth, it'd show up in the shot.
>Even if you move earth far away, it'd still show up, until it's so far
>away its light is falling on less than a single grain of the photograph;
>but as long as its idealized image is at least a single grain big, that
>grain would still be exposed.
Instead, we see a somewhat naked guano island like reflective
environment, for as far as the human and unfiltered Kodak eyes could
see, in places having a thin and naturally terrestrial clumping 50/50
dusting of portland cement and cornmeal that was entirely xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated (meaning w/o UV), whereas instead of their having
to deal with whatever the raw and nearly point source of the extremely
contrasty solar spectrum should have had to offer, along with such raw
influx having unavoidably shared absolute extra loads worth of the
near-UV and UV-a energy. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing of such
hocus-pocus artificial content within such bogus images, or otherwise of
mission associated content, that's worth a freaking hoot, much less a
scientific hoot.
Of course there's many other iffy if not downright naysay worthy
fly-by-rocket and still unproven lunar lander factors that simply do not
add up to what those pesky regular laws of physics and of replicated
science and of otherwise proven lander technology has to say.
Sorry that the likes of "Wayne Throop", "rick_so" and myself as your
pesky historical revisionist team, and otherwise truth telling
messengers from hell, must continually piss on your silly hocus-pocus
parade.
-
Brad Guth
Of a similar topic that's worthy of open disclosure:
Velikovsky/Neocatastrophism Sources / banished from Mailgate
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/rec/rec.org.mensa/Pbb1h.956$CT5.551%40trnddc02?order=smart&p=1/469