Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon
Brad Guth
global warming mascon to us, is still more off-limits than Venus,
whereas Venus is simply need-to-know or Old Testament sequestered for
the moment (in mainstream damage-control because Venus simply isn't as
old as Earth, and worse yet, we wouldn't be the first to having set a
hot foot on Venus).
Speaking a little about 'microgravity'; as such it's actually hard to
come by unless you're in a fast LEO orbit and therefore having to push
yourself through 8 km/s of headwinds (worse yet if you're in retrograde
mode), or simply best if you are out and about while literally hanging
nearly effortlessly around or rather within our moon's interactive L1
nullification zone.
If we're intent upon going for other planets or other moons of such
other planets, as such we could really use our moon's L1 for
accommodating our next ISS or whatever POOF or Clarke Station. In fact,
if we're merely going for our moon it's rather nifty if not essential
for having the mission command platform as coasting safely and
efficiently at r34 and thereby sustaining a velocity of roughly 866 m/s
with respect to Earth, as within this ME-L1 pocket of nearby space
that's about as devoid of atoms as it gets.
0) Our moon's L1 isn't a cheap date, nor is it not complex. You'll need
more than a good slide rule or pocket calculator if planning upon fully
utilizing this nifty interactive space that's so nearby. In other
words, all morons and/or the dumb and dumber sorts of snookered fools,
especially naysayer's, need not apply.
1) Anything deployed at our moon's L1 starts off small, and it grows to
suit.
2) From then on. it only gets as big and/or as complex as you'd like it
to get.
3) Because of what this LSE-CM/ISS represents, it's not going to happen
overnight.
My previously suggested 1e9 m3 CM/ISS abode or space depot that's
capable of becoming worth 256e6 tonnes is not an all or nothing sort of
super Clarke Station on steroids. For starters, it's simply quite a bit
larger, it's placed a wee bit further towards Earth (averaging 60,830 km
= 861 km/s to 62,568 km = 856 m/s), as well as it's multi-tethered
directly to the moon, and there are a few interactive elements involved.
The massive hull or shell of this CM/ISS may or may not have to spin, as
there are personal artificial gravity alternatives that would function
from within this well shielded environment.
The LSE-CM/ISS can eventually reside at the moon's 34r (59,092 km), if
not right at L1 once the tether dipole element is extended to within 4r
(25,512 km) of Earth. Over time the affect of this installation would
somewhat moderate the elliptical lunar orbit and even reduce and/or
eliminate the rate of recession, whereas some open mindset folks might
tend to think this is a good thing.
Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
So, why are so many of you folks getting yourselves so gosh darn huffy
or otherwise naysay about all of this?
Just because you don't have a masters degree in Chinese Mandarin doesn't
mean that we're out of luck. That's because China being smarter than
us, as such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order
to accommodate their less fortunate (Mandarin illiterate) clients, such
as us.
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
unless incorporating 8+ meters of water plus having somehow established
an artificial magnetosphere, or perhaps 16+ meters of h2o if w/o
magnetosphere (all necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from
our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's providing
a not so DNA friendly TBI worth of gamma and hard-X-rays), is simply
downright wussy about sharing the positive science and habitat/depot
considerations for utilizing the moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly a
mention of the tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space
exploration or the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed
environment, and it's still not having squat to do with any task of
actually developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon
itself.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
captain.
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eae6e59d5164ece11a9...@mygate.mailgate.org...
<flush>
> Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
> So, why are so many of you folks getting yourselves so gosh darn huffy
> or otherwise naysay about all of this?
>
> Just because you don't have a masters degree in Chinese Mandarin doesn't
> mean that we're out of luck. That's because China being smarter than
> us, as such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order
> to accommodate their less fortunate (Mandarin illiterate) clients, such
> as us.
>
if they are so great, what have they contributed in the last 500 years to
the rest of the world? sure, some things, but the country of china hardly
comes to mind when one thinks of great leaps forward in culture and
technology. if they are superior, as you suggest, then let them prove it by
achieving great accomplishments.
lechergod
that is why such communists' dog show their intention to seal
dissenters' mouth with various excuse as shameful !!!!
what have you canadians contributed to us?
we don't have to prove anything to you! you have to borrow money from
us !!!
die and go to hell !!!!!!!
TeaTime
0) You're right about it not being simple to deploy a space station at the
moon's Lagrange/libration point L1. Unlike the less useful points L4 and
L5, L1 is not a stable position and some form of thrusters would be required
to maintain said body in position.
1) The proximity of L1 to the moon (about 36,000 miles I estimate) does make
it handy for shopping trips to the lunar surface.
2) Building anything large in null gravity conditions has to be advantageous
(nothing new in that realisation).
3) It won't happen overnight, but it must be in the minds of many for the
future.
The articial body suggested would need to be of very substantial mass to
make any noticeable difference to the moon's elliptical trajectory.
However, if it eventually did get that big it would result in an increased
tidal flux and resultant transfer of more energy to the moon-satellite
combination i.e. a more rapid slowing of the earth's rotation and an
increased rate of recession, surely?
With regard to China: some interesting, emotive (and not always
well-informed) opinions exist about that growing super-race. Having spent
some considerable time there recently, first working in a high-tech
manufacturing environment, then attending trade fairs and subsequently being
an avid tourist, I have seen at first hand the phenomenal rate of growth of
the country, its industries and its people. The work ethic reigns supreme.
Just walk into a MacDonalds in any major city and see the students all
burning the midnight oil, bent over their books. Work with the people I did
and witness their dedication and respect for the companies they work for.
See the fantastic skyscrapers that put even those in the United States in
the shade for their transcendental beauty. Take the inland flights and 12
hour train journeys I did and see how many bridges, motorways, new factories
and conurbations are in constant development. Whatever anyone thinks they
know, based on the old China, should be forgotten now. That country is
yanking up its bootstraps and pulling out all the stops. China will rule
the planet in a couple of decades. Inevitably, it will then see the same
social decline we witness in the western world, but it will retain its
hardcore of technological excellence from which there is no turning back.
Yes, they have a poor human rights record in our western view, but they also
have a billion people to look after, a billion people who make up an engine
firing on all cylinders.
You're absolutely right - if we don't do it, they will.
lecherdog
captain. wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eae6e59d5164ece11a9...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> <flush>
>
> > Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
> > So, why are so many of you folks getting yourselves so gosh darn huffy
> > or otherwise naysay about all of this?
> >
> > Just because you don't have a masters degree in Chinese Mandarin doesn't
> > mean that we're out of luck. That's because China being smarter than
> > us, as such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order
> > to accommodate their less fortunate (Mandarin illiterate) clients, such
> > as us.
> >
>
> if they are so great, what have they contributed in the last 500 years to
> the rest of the world?
Up to now, I would say we contributed coolie cheap labor and sweat to
the world's industries, humiliations to last for a couple of
generations, and a constant boost of their glorious past of gunpowder,
compass, printing,... oh, yes, last, but not least, Confucius, the man
that tie China to the past and all its filth and beaucratic ways.
Brad Guth
news:QOybh.10758$rv4.9491@edtnps90
> if they are so great, what have they contributed in the last 500 years to
> the rest of the world? sure, some things, but the country of china hardly
> comes to mind when one thinks of great leaps forward in culture and
> technology. if they are superior, as you suggest, then let them prove it by
> achieving great accomplishments.
The vast and highly developed plus sufficiently intelligent nation of
China has accomplished and thereby contributed as much if not more to
the global advancements and survival of humanity than most any other lot
of souls you'd care to judge. However, unlike yourself and those of
your all-knowing kind, China isn't without its fair share of faults.
Therefore, I agree with your closing statement, but have you honest
intentions of allowing such to take place, or is promoting WW-III your
true intentions?
Brad Guth
news:4ZBbh.691$yK2...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net
> You're absolutely right - if we don't do it, they will.
Very good topic yaysay feedback. At least it's looking possible that a
few others in Usenet land (besides the two of us village idiots) are
seeing the not so dim light at the end of that tunnel to China. The
locomotive headlight that's so glaring at us because it's in a
blue-shift phase as it's arriving from China at such a good rate of
velocity, whereas this is the sort of glaring headlight of what we'll
need to get ourselves out of the way, that is unless you don't mind
getting badly run over by that fast moving train.
Too bad we've blown so many constructive opportunities since before
WW-II.
Brad Guth
>The articial body suggested would need to be of very substantial
>mass to make any noticeable difference to the moon's elliptical
>trajectory. However, if it eventually did get that big it would
>result in an increased tidal flux and resultant transfer of more
>energy to the moon-satellite combination i.e. a more rapid slowing
>of the earth's rotation and an increased rate of recession, surely?
I'm not quite so sure. First of all, a somewhat less elliptical orbit
should represent a good thing for the global warming environment of
Earth. Secondly, it's unlikely that any amount of orbital mass that's
tethered to/from the moon and that of a substantial CM/ISS at L1 that's
basically 99.9% mass as obtained from the moon itself, is ever going to
cause a significant variation in the recession. At best the ongoing
recession might become slighty moderated.
Even my 256e6 tonne CM/ISS plus a few tens of thousands of other tonnes
of the primary and dipole tether elements shouldn't cause the moon to
fall towards Earth, at least not any time soon.
The option of station-keeping a Clarke Station sort of deployment of
whatever mass is relatively energy efficient, especially extra nifty if
using my Ra-->LRn-->Rn-->ion thrusters.
lechergod
this communists' dog is really brain-washed to be such a fool !!!
just take hearsay to be screwed in full !!!
ha ha hahahaha
since this communists' dog had got soul-sold, so cannot see how the
dynasty
changes so frequently and how anti-harmonic within each dynasty is.
liars can only hear to lies-telling and can only rely on such lies !!!
that is the only way for communists' dogs !!!!
h aha hahahahaah
KvekIT wrote:
> If you rely on the last 500 years, it is not evident to point out China
> as a great culture and technology source. But if you go back a little
> further, China was the most advanced civ of the world. China will be
> again the most advanced civ soon. Its domination will have left place to
> european civs for a few centuries. But it is heading for success again.
> 500 years will be the duration of european domination. What will be next
> is very hard to predict, but China will soon be back as a powerful empire.
--
http://geocities.com/lechergod/predict.htm
owner of email <lecher...@yahoo.com>
declared in http://geocities.com/lechergod that
<<<--- REAL --->>> lechergod is using
NNTP-POSTING-HOST : cm218-254-185-182.hkcable.com.hk.
all bastard of falsifying "lechergod" had just presented their mothers
to
be fucked by lechergod, but are not entitled to use such email.
*** THE BASTARDS CANNOT MADE THE SIGNATURE IN VERY THIN COLOUR !!!
***
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to n...@netfront.net
Brad Guth
>as a great culture and technology source. But if you go back a little
>further, China was the most advanced civ of the world. China will be
>again the most advanced civ soon. Its domination will have left place to
>european civs for a few centuries. But it is heading for success again.
>500 years will be the duration of european domination. What will be next
>is very hard to predict, but China will soon be back as a powerful empire.
I think China represents a rather intellectually powerful empire as is,
and certainly scientifically it isn't all that far behind, if at all.
It takes spare energy in order to produce/reproduce products and
services. China has spare energy and obviously more than a sufficient
number of intelligent folks that are not about to let such go to waste.
Short of natural disasters or the fiasco of WW-III, there's nothing
keeping China from the holy grail of owning our moon's L1.
Brad Guth
news:1164925295.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
> h aha hahahahaah
>>KvekIT / Date: Thurs, Nov 30 2006 12:24 pm
>>If you rely on the last 500 years, it is not evident to point out China
>>as a great culture and technology source. But if you go back a little
>>further, China was the most advanced civ of the world. China will be
>>again the most advanced civ soon. Its domination will have left place to
>>european civs for a few centuries. But it is heading for success again.
>>500 years will be the duration of european domination. What will be next
>>is very hard to predict, but China will soon be back as a powerful empire.
Unlike yourself, I think China represents a rather intellectually
powerful empire as is, and certainly scientifically it isn't all that
far behind, if at all.
It takes spare energy in order to produce/reproduce products and
services. China has spare energy and obviously more than a sufficient
number of intelligent folks that are not about to let such go to waste.
Short of natural disasters or the fiasco of our perpetrating the world
into WW-III, there's nothing keeping China from the holy grail of owning
our moon's L1.
Brad Guth
Usenet is available to the general public of China?
lecherdog
KvekIT wrote:
> Are you ok?
He's not OK. He's just the usual communist dog lecher dog telling lies
and cheating again yelling slogans making quarrels to seal dissenters
mouths arsehole licking lice. I'm just imitating him to annoy and
agitate him. Until he learn to use proper English, I will continue to
harrass, annoy, agitate and goat him.
hahahahahahahahahaha
chua...@yahoo.com
lecherdog
chua...@hotmail.com wrote:
> All of it !
I thought you were going to tell me all about me, and the other lecher
dog. I haven't seen it. When are you going to tell me all you know
about me, Chuande Tu?
Brad Guth
> Just wondering as to how much if any of theis 'soc.culture.china' NG of
> Usenet is available to the general public of China?
In other words, anything of "soc.culture.china" is every bit as much of
a pathetic ruse as for all the rest of this MI/NSA~KGB skewed Usenet
that's anti China, as much as being anti Muslim or simply anti to
whatever rocks thy Old Testament boat. Gee whiz, folks, why am I not
surprised that such bigotry, arrogance and lack of remorse has become
part of our genetic DNA code.
http://groups.google.com/groups?lnk=hpsg&hl=en&q=sci.lang.chinese
Oddly, Usenet's "sci.lang.chinese" group doesn't even coexist as an
option within Mailgate/Usenet, yet it's sort of there to behold within
GOOGLE/Usenet naysay land of potential US/China usage, that is if it
were ever allowed by our own kind to do so.
talk.politics.china is however in both GOOGLE/Mailgate places, though
seems a touch unlikely to have any appropriate interest in science or
that of applied space technology.
Not that China hasn't in the past kept a tight lid on whatever their
kind could or could not do, however, clearly as of the last couple of
decades it is the all-knowing gods and wizards of our Usenet and
especially the likes of Mailgate.org or worse sorts of Bigots-R-Us
Usenet servers that's being anti-China, and it is not actually the other
way around.
Perhaps what's needed instead of "sci.lang.chinese" is "sci.usa.bigot",
or perhaps old.testament.upyours that's in need of being right up front
and in their face. After all, it was our mutually perpetrated
cold-war(s) that wasted all of those decades and of the trillions upon
trillions worth of our resources upon pretending that the US/USSR thing
was real, when in fact it wasn't. (it's what supposed super-powers do to
one another, because it makes the rest of us village idiots pay and pay
and pay for it all, and then some)
Brad Guth
news:1164942054.3...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
> KvekIT wrote:
> > Are you ok?
>
> He's not OK. He's just the usual communist dog lecher dog telling lies
> and cheating again yelling slogans making quarrels to seal dissenters
> mouths arsehole licking lice. I'm just imitating him to annoy and
> agitate him. Until he learn to use proper English, I will continue to
> harrass, annoy, agitate and goat him.
> hahahahahahahahahaha
In other words, putting the likes of Christ on a stick is what you'd
call being ok.
Taking from others, especially if they're Muslim or Cathar, is what
you'd call being ok.
That must be why you're not constructively contributing to the topic at
hand, because it involves honest to god physics and of replicated
science that anyone with so much as half a village idiot brain could
take to the bank.
lecherdog
Brad Guth wrote:
> Just wondering as to how much if any of theis 'soc.culture.china' NG of
> Usenet is available to the general public of China?
You haven'y been paying attention in this ng. There have been many
people from within China itself participating in discussion within SCC.
They said they can access soc.culture.china readily and without
problem.
Brad Guth
> You haven'y been paying attention in this ng. There have been many
> people from within China itself participating in discussion within SCC.
> They said they can access soc.culture.china readily and without
> problem.
Thanks much, as I had been wondering about that, especially since so
many here in this anti-think-tank of Usenet naysay land seem rather bent
upon enforcing their Old Testament mindset, or else.
Brad Guth
course, most Americans are still pretty much dumbfounded and/or having
been snookered about a great many such important things in this
infomercial skewed life as we've been allowed to know of. Perhaps those
more intelligent members in support of the China National Space
Administration/CNSA are as such less snookered than we're giving them
credit for.
Basically, the average free-gravity-zone of this moon L1 is supposedly
r33.5~r34 away from the moon and otherwise merely r51 from Earth
(unfortunately there's still no hard-scientific and thus independently
replicated proof of such actually being the case of those specific
numbers), that's worthy of obtaining micro if not nano and even pico
gravity, although nearly any +/- adjustment in the net gravity can be
accommodated and rather efficiently interactively sustained.
Within this interactive moon L1 pocket (+/- wherever it has to be) there
should be as little as 1% the atoms/cm3 and of the required velocity is
roughly 9 fold less than LEO (those factors alone represent a rather
huge reduction in orbital friction, and thereby greatly minimizing
station-keeping energy demands). There's also no pesky gauntlet of Van
Allen belt radiation or SAA like nasty pocket of magnetosphere stored
radiation. It's also nearly always sunny as well as having either
earthshine and/or moonshine at your disposal, and of that moonshine so
happens to include a great deal of useful secondary/recoil photons in
the IR/FIR spectrum, plus offering loads of gamma and hard-X-rays
because there's so little mass between L1 and the highly reactive naked
surface of the physically dark and cosmic morgue that's represented by
our moon.
The moon's L1 is not technically a problem for most robotics, however
our frail DNA will demand a great amount of shielding that's similar to
8 meters of water, and for any long term (multi year) human involvement
demanding 16 meters of water unless an artificial magnetosphere can be
sustained. There's also the pesky matter of having to survive various
meteors of potentially lethal flak that isn't the least bit moderated in
velocity nor being gravity diverted.
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's nicely revised and
certainly rather interesting but otherwise seriously outdated,
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/reports/CB-1106/maryland01b.pdf
not to mention way under-shielded unless incorporating 8+ meters of
water plus having somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or
perhaps incorporating 16+ meters of h2o if w/o magnetosphere (shielding
that's necessary because it's parked within 60,000 km from our
physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's continually
providing such a not so DNA friendly TBI worth of gamma and
hard-X-rays), is simply a downright deficient document about sharing the
positive science and constructive habitat/depot considerations for
utilizing the moon's L1. In fact, there's hardly any mention of the
tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space exploration or
the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed environment, and it's
still not having squat to do with any primary task of actually
developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon itself.
On the other hand, whereas the CM/ISS portion of the LSE which I've
proposed offers 50t/m2 of outter shell or hull shielding for
accommodating the 1e9 m3 interior, thereby multiple decades if not an
entire lifetime can be afforded, as to safely accommodating our frail
DNA. That may seem like a rather great amount of tonnage deployment,
though eventually 99.9% is derived from the moon itself. Of course,
don't mind anything that I have to suggest, whereas you can keep
thinking as small and/or as insignificant as you'd like. However, our
having remained as LEO/terrestrial sequestered isn't going to help us
explore, pillage and rape the other planets and of their moons, not to
mention the mining and/or possible terraforming potential of digging
into our very own global warming moon that's chuck full of nifty and
rare elements.
I guess what's needed is an open mindset that isn't afraid of it's own
shadow, that isn't afraid of making a few honest mistakes nor
demonstrating that perhaps we're not exactly the smartest nor the most
entitled species of DNA in this universe. (sorry about that)
foolsrushin.
I promise I'll dig in a bit, thereafter.
--'
foolsrushin.'
Brad Guth
news:1165090267....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Brad, just get your ass over to rec.org,mensa, and shout about it, and
> I promise I'll dig in a bit, thereafter.
You'd think, but thus far the types of folks in ROM seem as though
rather deathly afraid of their own shadow, especially those shadows of
having depicted their brown noses continually sucked up to the
infomercial buttology of whatever their status quo collective mindset
has to say.
TeaTime
> You'd think, but thus far the types of folks in ROM seem as though
> rather deathly afraid of their own shadow, especially those shadows of
> having depicted their brown noses continually sucked up to the
> infomercial buttology of whatever their status quo collective mindset
> has to say.
> -
> Brad Guth
Oh - you mean they're set in their ways and not open to new ideas? Surely
not - what odd fellows!
Cindy Anna Jones
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote lots o' crap in message
news:631f0dd7a9ec92e258b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
So did Venus kick your butt?
Brad Guth
> Oh - you mean they're set in their ways and not open to new ideas? Surely
> not - what odd fellows!
Looking at the sorts of past ROM topics, and of the pathetic if any
constructive replies is proof enough that I'm right. If there's
supposedly actual expertise within ROM, as such it's in stealth mode.
These ROM folks are not only set in their ways, but having been rather
nicely mindset as to only reinforcing upon whatever least rocks thy
mainstream status quo boat (aka Old Testament good ship LOLLIPOP).
I have a perfectly good though somewhat testy list of ROM worthy topics,
whereas none of which are being attended to or otherwise shared because
of all the lose cannons and/or boat rocking nature they each represent.
Paul Mc
A subject worthy of discussion. Has Arthur C expressed an opinion about
it?
Paul
Brad Guth
news:fHmch.29$qo2...@newsfe09.lga
> "Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote lots o' crap in message
> news:631f0dd7a9ec92e258b...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> So did Venus kick your butt?
Silly (literally) that you should ask, as I simply and quite honestly
had long time ago interpreted a few good SAR obtained images of Venus,
as having clearly depicted that something highly intelligent had
existed/coexisted on Venus. I bet that statement alone is simply too
complicated for your mindset.
What sorts of other than Earth's terrestrial form of intelligent life
might have been involved, as with their having survived upon Venus?
BTW; Why are you avoiding the primary topic that's pertaining to our
moon, that's in charge of global warming us to death as of the last ice
age?
If nothing else, just tell us whatever it is that you do or don't
believe in.
Brad Guth
news:1165134240.5...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
> A subject worthy of discussion. Has Arthur C expressed an opinion about
> it?
I obviously agree, but what's your honest give or take?
BTW; who is this "Arthur C"? (other than the 90 year old fart of Arthur
C. Clarke himself)
-
Brad Guth
--
Paul Mc
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Paul Mc" <pmc...@angli.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1165134240.5...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com
>
> > A subject worthy of discussion. Has Arthur C expressed an opinion about
> > it?
>
> I obviously agree, but what's your honest give or take?
>
> BTW; who is this "Arthur C"? (other than the 90 year old fart of Arthur
> C. Clarke himself)
> -
> Brad Guth
Yes I meant him (shortened becuase he was referenced in your university
document) and he's given good service to the space business over the
last sixty years and generally has a trenchant view of such matters.
I'm no expert on gravitational or radiological issues but have
considerable experience in marketing commercial satellites and so was
wondering what comunications possibilities this idea might afford. As I
non-expert I have difficulty envisaging its 'orbit' when viewed from
the Earth or the Moon (being used to simple concepts like
geo-stationary or LEO.
I also thought it a worthy subject for discussion within cam.misc, but
it seems to have been diappeared from there already.
Paul
TeaTime
> I'm no expert on gravitational or radiological issues but have
> considerable experience in marketing commercial satellites and so was
> wondering what comunications possibilities this idea might afford. As I
> non-expert I have difficulty envisaging its 'orbit' when viewed from
> the Earth or the Moon (being used to simple concepts like
> geo-stationary or LEO.
>
> I also thought it a worthy subject for discussion within cam.misc, but
> it seems to have been diappeared from there already.
The Lagrange points are positions where the gravitational fields of two
bodies effectively cancel. For the moon, there are five such points, named
L1 to L5. The moon's Lagrange point L1 is about 36,000 miles from the moon
(or about 203,000 miles from earth) on a straight line connecting earth and
moon. A satellite positioned at moon L1 would therefore orbit the earth
along with the moon every 27.322 days (orbit tilted about 28.7 degress to
the equator this year). Radio signals would take about 1.3 seconds to
cover the distance, one way.
The other Lagrange points are L2 (on the same line but about 36,000 miles
behind the moon), L3 (on the same line but about 239,000 miles behind the
earth) and L4/L5 (on lines 60 degrees ahead/behind the first line and both
about 239,000 miles away).
Brad Guth
> I'm no expert on gravitational or radiological issues but have
> considerable experience in marketing commercial satellites and so was
> wondering what comunications possibilities this idea might afford. As I
> non-expert I have difficulty envisaging its 'orbit' when viewed from
> the Earth or the Moon (being used to simple concepts like
> geo-stationary or LEO.
Our moon and of it's L1 zone or gravity-well pocket is somewhat the one
and only ideal GSO to the moon itself, and otherwise this L1 is rather
ideal for accommodating laser cannon packets of FM/quantum binary data
that's going between planets or even to/from a few of the nearby star
systems, or for that matter of to/from any number of terrestrial or
satellite nodes that are near or far. There's aso extremely good
VLA/SAR imaging and subsequent NEO tracking capability of whatever's out
there, that's more than worthy of accomplishing.
Since there's likely less than 5e3 atoms/cm3 within this L1 to deal
with, as such the originating laser cannon beam is going to be least
distorted or otherwise attinuated, yet operations of such will always
remain in full view of Earth. Fully remote pilotted station-keeping
duties and whatever scientific operations can also transpire effectively
from your home office or portable laptop that's wherever as long as
you're into the encrypted network. With hardly any signal delay to
speak of, with a global configuration of as few as three or four
relatively simple and affordable ground to this moon L1 tracking
stations, and/or via a couple of terrestrial satellites as transponders
would obviously insure 100% coverage.
> I also thought it a worthy subject for discussion within cam.misc, but
> it seems to have been diappeared from there already.
Sadly, much of whatever's moon L1 related (including Clarke Station)
remains as either taboo/nondisclosure, as in topic/author X-rated, or
simply having been entirely banished because the actual and very real
laws of physics must apply.
On behalf of utilizing our moon's L1, I don't see any insurmountable
problems with either the interactive station-keeping demands of a
floating space station/depot as proposed by Sir Arthur Clarke, or that
of being a fully tethered part of the LSE configuration, other than
beefing up the shielding considerations so that staying onboard for
months on end if not years at a time is manageable without folks having
to rely upon banked bone marrow as their plan-B should things get a
touch TBI lethal.
If my Mailgate/Usenet allows it, I'll certainly try to place a viable L1
topic into "cam.misc", though I'm not expecting to see much results,
especially since I have such a short fuse on my battery of lose cannons,
as necessary for the task of returning the usual topic/author bashing
favor.
TeaTime
<usual total disregard for other poster's comment and question snipped>
... and that's why I stepped in and answered Paul's question, in plain
English, with not a trace of taboo, non-disclosure, X-rating, banishment, or
any other of your stupid paranpid bullshit. See how simple it is, really?
Brad Guth
As far as I could tell, Paul had no apparent question about anything
Lagrange related, as that's pretty well covered by Sir Arthur Clarke and
countless others. However, there was a fairly obvious hint of a
"comunications possibilities" question that obviously your trigger happy
if not equally lose cannon mindset entirely missed.
Thanks anyway for telling us what we already know, or at least should
have known. I do have a few Lagrange related questions for another
time, that is if you're still interested in being so nice about sharing
your expertise.
Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
this.
BTW; why are you and so many others of your kind being so anti
SI/metric?
TeaTime
> As far as I could tell, Paul had no apparent question about anything
> Lagrange related, as that's pretty well covered by Sir Arthur Clarke and
> countless others. However, there was a fairly obvious hint of a
> "comunications possibilities" question that obviously your trigger happy
> if not equally lose cannon mindset entirely missed.
> Thanks anyway for telling us what we already know, or at least should
> have known. I do have a few Lagrange related questions for another
> time, that is if you're still interested in being so nice about sharing
> your expertise.
Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks. I realise you
would already know about it or you wouldn't post about it so
enthusiastically. As a matter of interest, I take it you are aware that the
SOHO satellite enjoys its unobstructed view of the sun from earth's L1
libration point? Like the moon's L1, it isn't a point of stable equilibrium
so that SOHO requires a little fuel every few months to nudge it back into
position.
> Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
> this.
What do you mean by 'Usenet postal' ? I read posts on this group on a daily
basis with considerable interest and post a response wherever I think I can
make an interesting or humorous contribution.
> BTW; why are you and so many others of your kind being so anti
> SI/metric?
For my own part, as a professional engineer living in the UK and working
worldwide, I use nothing but S.I. units on a daily basis. When we converse
colloquially, both here and in the USA, we still talk about miles as they
remain more familiar to many people. Road signs here are still in miles for
some odd reason, though it is actually illegal for our shopkeepers to sell
their produce in anything but kilogrammes and litres. It's a whacky old
world and I suspect full metrification, both official and social, will take
a few more years. See? I give you an inch and you take a mile.
Paul Mc
TeaTime wrote:
> Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
> a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
> an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks.
Thanks to both of you for filling in the blanks and getting me to first
base on this. A further set of queries occurs to me:
If something is orbiting the earth more or less coincident with the
moon, I assume that communicating with it from the earth will require
some frequencies and/or technologies which will prevent it from
interfering with GEO or LEO communications.
Has the ITU considered this in its little red books and has anyone
applied for licenses to use such frequencies. That would be a practical
thing for nation states to do if they wanted to build something out
there, I would think.
Mark McIntyre
<lickns...@hotmail.com> wrote:
teatime,
--
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ | feed the |
/ \ | Trolls |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
Brad Guth
> Paul did say that he had difficulty visualising the orbit of a body at such
> a point. He also mentioned communication possibilities. I took that to be
> an inferred query and tried to fill in some of the blanks. I realise you
> would already know about it or you wouldn't post about it so
> enthusiastically. As a matter of interest, I take it you are aware that the
> SOHO satellite enjoys its unobstructed view of the sun from earth's L1
> libration point? Like the moon's L1, it isn't a point of stable equilibrium
> so that SOHO requires a little fuel every few months to nudge it back into
> position.
Thanks much for the constructive feedback.
How much station-keeping fuel per tonne per lunar month are we talking
about, of staying within the interactive zone of our moon's L1?
> > Now tell us why you're the one that's going Usenet postal about all of
> > this.
>
> What do you mean by 'Usenet postal' ? I read posts on this group on a daily
> basis with considerable interest and post a response wherever I think I can
> make an interesting or humorous contribution.
Going Usenet postal is simply my catch phrase for others doing somewhat
exactly as I with my battery of lose cannons in order to defend myself,
especially when folks arrive as seemingly out of nowhere (as though
topic/author stalking) in order to enter an established topic, and right
off the bat they go into another one of their all or nothing naysay
modes, and/or tear off in an entirely different out-of-context direction
because they obviously don't like me or hardly anyone else for that
matter.
Those topic/author stalking with no honest intentions of constructively
contributing to the given intent of the topic at hand are in my koran
more than worthy of being classified as going usenet postal. It's also
what folks tend to do if they're crazy with ulterior motives and hidden
agendas that are at risk. If I can manage to return the warm and fuzzy
favor, I do so with all the love and affection I can muster, as to rock
their good ship LOLLIPOP until it hopefully sinks, along with all of
such naysay fools onboard.
> For my own part, as a professional engineer living in the UK and working
> worldwide, I use nothing but S.I. units on a daily basis. When we converse
> colloquially, both here and in the USA, we still talk about miles as they
> remain more familiar to many people. Road signs here are still in miles for
> some odd reason, though it is actually illegal for our shopkeepers to sell
> their produce in anything but kilogrammes and litres. It's a whacky old
> world and I suspect full metrification, both official and social, will take
> a few more years. See? I give you an inch and you take a mile.
Just for being a good sport, I think we should stick with S.I. units,
which is still a somewhat tricky matter for my dyslexic self. Unlike
most others wizards within this Usenet naysay land, at least I'm willing
to learn in order to go along with the majority flow of this world,
which for good reason has been metric for decades.
Brad Guth
> If something is orbiting the earth more or less coincident with the
> moon, I assume that communicating with it from the earth will require
> some frequencies and/or technologies which will prevent it from
> interfering with GEO or LEO communications.
>
> Has the ITU considered this in its little red books and has anyone
> applied for licenses to use such frequencies. That would be a practical
> thing for nation states to do if they wanted to build something out
> there, I would think.
I find it rather odd that these folks that usually claim as being such
all-knowing wizards can't manage to constructively contribute to your
request.
Terrestrial and/or of whatever's of terrestrial satellite communications
with whatever's utilizing the moon's L1 isn't the least bit of a problem
for existing technology, especially if using FM/quantum binary packets
via laser beams.
Might I further ask; How many terabytes per second or rather per ms
would you like to transfer?
Brad Guth
It seems that our trusty moon, as having represented such a terrific
mascon of forced global warming to our environment ever since the last
ice age, is still more off-limits than Venus, whereas Venus is simply
need-to-know or Old Testament nondisclosure sequestered for the moment
(in mainstream status quo damage-control limbo because the planetology
of Venus simply isn't as old as Earth, and worse yet, it looks as though
we wouldn't be the first of intelligent souls having set a hot foot on
Venus).
Speaking a little about 'microgravity'; as such it's actually hard to
come by and harder yet to sustain unless you're in a fast LEO orbit and
therefore having to push yourself through 8 km/s worth of headwinds
(worse yet if you're in retrograde mode), or simply best accommodated if
you are out and about while literally hanging nearly effortlessly around
or rather within our moon's interactive L1 nullification zone.
If we are intent and thereby serious upon going for other planets or
other moons of such other planets, as such we could really use our
moon's L1 for accommodating our next ISS or whatever POOF or Clarke
Station as our do-everything space depot. In fact, if we're merely
going for our moon, it's rather nifty if not technically essential for
having the mission command platform as coasting safely and efficiently
at roughly r34, thereby sustaining an average velocity of roughly 866
m/s with respect to Earth, as parallel parked or rather coasting nearly
effortlessly along within this ME-L1 pocket of nearby space that's about
as devoid of atoms as it gets.
0) Our moon's L1 isn't a cheap date, nor is it not complex. You'll need
more than a good slide rule or pocket calculator if planning upon fully
utilizing this nifty interactive space that's so nearby. In other
words, all morons and/or the dumb and dumber sorts of village idiot
snookered fools, especially the dumbfounded naysayer's of Usenet, need
not apply.
1) Anything deployed at our moon's L1 starts off small, and it grows to
suit.
2) From then on. it only gets as big and/or as complex as you'd like it
to get.
3) Because of what this LSE-CM/ISS represents, it's not going to happen
overnight.
My previously suggested 1e9 m3 CM/ISS abode or space depot that's
capable of becoming worth 256e6 tonnes is not an all or nothing sort of
super Clarke Station on steroids. For starters, it's simply quite a bit
larger (a core of roughly 1280 meters), it's placed a wee bit further
towards Earth (perhaps r35~r36, averaging 60,830 km @861 km/s to 62,568
km @856 m/s) while multi-tethered directly to the moon, and there are a
few nifty interactive elements involved. The massive hull or shell of
this CM/ISS may or may not have to spin, as there are personal
artificial gravity alternatives that would function from within this
well shielded environment.
The LSE-CM/ISS can eventually reside at the moon's 34r (59,092 km), with
those counter rotating flywheels of energy storage being sustained at
r33.5 or whatever's exactly L1 (+/- 1 microgravity) once the tether
dipole element is extended to within 4r(25,512 km) of Earth (or perhaps
r6/38,268 is close enough). Over time the affect of this installation
would somewhat moderate the elliptical lunar orbit and could even reduce
and/or eliminate the rate of recession, whereas some open mindset folks
might tend to think this outcome is a good thing.
Besides, I'm absolutely certain that China will know exactly what to do.
So, I'll have to keep asking, why are so many of you folks (as
all-knowing as you've claimed to be) getting yourselves so gosh darn
huffy or otherwise naysay about all of this?
Just because you don't have a masters degree in Chinese Mandarin doesn't
mean that we're out of luck. That's because China becoming smarter and
having been wiser than most of us, and having been increasing that lead,
as such they'll learn our language (as many already have) in order to
accommodate their less fortunate (Mandarin illiterate) clients, such as
us.
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
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 60,000 km from
our physically dark and otherwise highly reactive moon that's providing
a not so DNA friendly TBI(total body irradiation) dosage worth of gamma
and hard-X-rays, is simply downright wussy about sharing the positive
science and habitat/depot considerations for utilizing the moon's L1.
In fact, the Clarke Station document itself gives hardly a mention on
behalf of the tremendous L1 benefits to humanity, much less as to space
exploration or the daunting task of salvaging our mascon warmed
environment, and oddly it's still not having squat to do with any task
of actually developing, exploiting or otherwise terraforming the moon
itself. The document talks as though the moon doesn't hardly exist,
which is rather unfortunate since we'll be in need of such raw elements
and vast energy resources of the moon and from the L1 dipole as we
manage to run ourselves out of terrestrial fossil and yellowcake fuels
(can't hardly wage WW-IV w/o energy), as we continue to dim the albedo
of our Earth with as much energy consuming soot and otherwise toxic
chemical pollution as we can muster.
If you folks need my list of related subtopics before getting involved,
as such I'll do just that because, I have far more questions than
answers to share. Also, if you can place a copy of this topic into
NASA's "uplink.space.com" or even Usenet "cam.misc" and of similar
groups (especially of those moderated to death) that might appreciate a
good challenge or poke in the eye with a sharp stick, please do as much
as you can get away with.
Paul Mc
Brad Guth wrote:
> Terrestrial and/or of whatever's of terrestrial satellite communications
> with whatever's utilizing the moon's L1 isn't the least bit of a problem
> for existing technology, especially if using FM/quantum binary packets
> via laser beams.
>
> Might I further ask; How many terabytes per second or rather per ms
> would you like to transfer?
Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
or are you taking about satellite to station communications?
Brad Guth
> Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
> beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
> or are you taking about satellite to station communications?
No problem.
Laser beam communication works best external to atmosphere, thus the
further away or between planets or that of a given planet/moon or binary
planet L1 situation the better for such laser beams achieving the most
two-way range per joule.
However, a laser beam can be configured in order to function to/from the
surface of Venus, transferring if need be a terabyte/ms is still
technically doable, especially if that's being accomplished to/from
Venus L2, or quite possibly as to/from our moon's L1.
Earth to Venus is even doable, although it'll obviously demand more
initial beam energy and there may be significant data throughput
limitations. Without a Venus satellite or at least that of a rigid
airship cruising above them thick clouds, as such there's no laser
communications capability of Venusians specifically hitting Earth with
any such beam of photons, although cloud-top illuminations of their
FM/quantum modulated packets are certainly doable.
Remember that at times (roughly every 19 months/584 days), Venus is only
100 fold the distance as that of our physically dark and somewhat salty
moon.
TeaTime
> Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
> beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
> or are you taking about satellite to station communications?
Yes, out in space laser beams are an ideal medium for telemetry of all
kinds. The most recent searches for extraterrestrial life have been in the
visible spectrum (OSETI) in the expectation that other civilisations might
use high-energy lasers as rotating beacons to send out a welcome note.
Light photons travel on through space forever. That is how we can see
distant galaxies thousands of millions of light-years away. Visible red or
infrared types are ideal in the space environment, whilst for penetrating
cloudy atmospheres the longer infrared wavelengths are more effective.
increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of principle, but
will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter; and adequate
onboard memory. Sev-to receive transmissions from spacecraft in various
orbits.Ground receiving stations are simply large optical telescopes, which
we knowhow to build. On high mountain tops, the atmosphere transmits signals
from spaceto ground with a satisfactory efficiency of > 70% at 1500-1600nm.
Signal power on-board spacecraft can be provided by existing laser diodes
amplified by Erbium
increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of principle, but
will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter; and adequate
onboard memory. Sev-eral well-separated mountain-top receiving stations
around the globe are also neededto receive transmissions from spacecraft in
various orbits.increased by factors of thousands without basic changes of
principle, but will requireincreased signal power; a suitable transmitter;
and adequate onboard memory. Sev-eral well-separated mountain-top receiving
stations around the globe are also neededto receive transmissions from
spacecraft in various orbits.Ground receiving stations are simply large
optical telescopes, which we knowhow to build. On high mountain tops, the
atmosphere transmits signals from spaceto ground with a satisfactory
efficiency of > 70% at 1500-1600nm. Signal power on-board spacecraft can be
provided by existing laser diodes amplified by Erbium Doped3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
Fiber Amplifiers (EDFA) or Raman amplifiers, both in extensive use at 1550nm
in thetelecommunications industry (6). To obtain sufficient bandwidth, Dense
Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a widely used technique in the
telecommunicationsindustry, can be employed (7). The spacecraft transmitter
can be a 1-meter-class tele-scope with high pointing accuracy and adaptive
optics to assure a properly collimatedbeam. The only component not readily
available is the onboard memory required tostore up to several days' worth
of collected data.A data gathering rate of 1 Gbps accumulates ? 1014bits of
information in thecourse of a day. Commercially available solid state
memories store up to ? 128gigabytes of memory, or 1012bits. If current
growth rates are sustained, the requiredfactor of ? 100 increase in memory
capacity will become commercially availablewithin 10 to 15 years.If we start
serious work towards a functioning near-infrared telemetry systemtoday, an
effective system can be available in 10 - 15 years to fully service
missionsnow on the drawing boards. The lead must come from the scientific
community. TheU. S. National Academy of Sciences has recognized the problem
(8), but energeticaction will be required to prevent a data transmission
bottleneck from reaching crisisproportions.Because the fiber-optics
communications industry already provides most of the4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
individual components required for near-infrared laser telemetry, and
componentsnot yet available should come on the market in the decade ahead,
work towards anear-infrared telemetry system carries little risk and will
rapidly pay for itself in theefficiency with which data can be gathered and
transmitted. Meteorology, climato-logical observations, oceanography,
geophysical studies, planetary exploration, andastrophysics will all
benefit. However, progress will come about only with the alloca-tion of
sufficient resources by NASA and ESA - the two lead agencies in the
field -and the focused attention of the scientific
community.AcknowledgmentThe work of MH is supported by contracts from
NASA.References and Notes1. Long-range plans for future space missions
include arrays with 109pixels with highdynamic range and readout times of
the order of seconds.2. Starck, J.- L. et al., 1999, Astronomy &
Astrophysics Supplement, 138, 365 -380.3. Manual of Regulations & Procedures
for Federal Radio Frequency Management5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
(the"Red Book"), http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/CHP04.pdf, pages
70- 91.4. Free-Space Laser Communication Technologies XIII, edited by G.
StephenMecherie, Proceedings of SPIE, volume 4272, 24-25 January 2001, San
Jose, CA,USA.5. "Perfect images transmitted via laser link between Artemis
and SPOT 4",European Space Agency press release No. 75-2001, Paris, 6
December, 2001; also,"Lasers link orbiting satellites," 23 November, 2001,
Optics.org, The Online PhotonicsResource:
http://optics.org/article/news/7/11/23.6. P. C. Becker, N.A. Olson & J.R.
Simpson Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifiers:Fundamentals and Technology, Academic
Press, 1999.Five years ago, the European Space Agency (ESA) demonstrated
near-
infrared laser communication between the SPOT-4 and Artemis orbiting
satellitesinfrared laser communication between the SPOT-4 and Artemis
orbiting satellites. Initial tests used experimental data rates of only 50
Mbps.This rate can be increased by factors of thousands without basic
changes in principle, but requires increased signal power, a suitable
transmitter and adequate onboard memory. Several well separated mountain-top
receiving stations around the globe are also needed to receive transmissions
from spacecraft in various orbits. Ground receiving stations are simply
large optical telescopes, which we know how to build. On high mountain tops,
the atmosphere transmits signals from space to ground with a satisfactory
efficiency of > 70% at 1500-1600nanometres wavelength (long infrared).
Signal power onboard spacecraft can be provided by existing laser diodes
amplified by erbium doped fibre Amplifiers (EDFA) or Raman amplifiers, both
in extensive use at 1550nm in the telecommunications industry. To obtain
sufficient bandwidth, Dense Wavelength-Division Multiplexing (DWDM), a
widely used technique in the telecommunications industry, can be employed.
The spacecraft transmitter can be a 1-meter-class telescope with high
pointing accuracy and adaptive optics to assure a properly collimated beam.
TeaTime
to have copied the entire pdf document on the back of my two-penn'orth
instead of its link.
Here it is again:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:GQi3U-vT_eoJ:www.aao.gov.au/lasers/short_telemetry.pdf+long+range+laser+communication+infra+red&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=11
TeaTime
kinds. The most recent searches for extraterrestrial life have been in the
visible spectrum (OSETI) in the expectation that other civilisations might
use high-energy lasers as rotating beacons to send out a welcome note.
Light photons travel on through space forever. That is how we can see
distant galaxies thousands of millions of light-years away. Visible red or
infrared types are ideal in the space environment, whilst for penetrating
cloudy atmospheres the longer infrared wavelengths are more effective.
Also see this article (5 years old now):
Brad Guth
What do you think about using 450 nm or possibly 425 nm (+/- 25 nm as
the FM/quantum modulated binary bandwidth)?
Say using a 0.05 milliradian beam and perhaps 10 ms duration packets, at
perhaps as many as 10 such packets/sec? (although one such 10 ms quantum
binary packet/sec or even per minute is certainly more than good enough)
TeaTime
> What do you think about using 450 nm or possibly 425 nm (+/- 25 nm as
> the FM/quantum modulated binary bandwidth)?
> Say using a 0.05 milliradian beam and perhaps 10 ms duration packets, at
> perhaps as many as 10 such packets/sec? (although one such 10 ms quantum
> binary packet/sec or even per minute is certainly more than good enough)
> -
> Brad Guth
Using wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum yields certain benefits in
space-to-space communication in that the photon packet energy is
considerably higher for the same power output. However, space-to-ground
requires wavelengths that can penetrate cloud and dust layers and in that
respect you're better off with longer wavelengths (microwave always worked
rather well, as in the radar mapping of the venusian surface). I'd say
450nm (or shorter) for inter-satellite links and maybe 1100nm (or longer)
for downlinks.
As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile diameter
circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles again.
At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need to
be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only and
it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence too.
As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
pretty standard application.
Paul Mc
Thanks, most interesting reading. The University of Maryland document
rather less ambitiously talked about the possible space station having
four channels of HDTV-type bitrates at Ku-Band. That might be adequate
for shore-to-ship communications without the investment in those
through-atmosphere laser ground stations which sound kind of pricey.
Paul
Brad Guth
> Using wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum yields certain benefits in
> space-to-space communication in that the photon packet energy is
> considerably higher for the same power output. However, space-to-ground
> requires wavelengths that can penetrate cloud and dust layers and in that
> respect you're better off with longer wavelengths (microwave always worked
> rather well, as in the radar mapping of the venusian surface). I'd say
> 450nm (or shorter) for inter-satellite links and maybe 1100nm (or longer)
> for downlinks.
Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.
The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.
450 nm or even 425 nm should not be any problem going betwween planets,
especially if at least one of those planets was utilizing a satellite or
moon based laser cannon.
> As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile diameter
> circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles again.
> At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need to
> be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
> distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only and
> it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
> Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence too.
> As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
> pretty standard application.
You are a very easily dumbfounded soul. Therefore you'll believe in
absolutely anything that's in official print, even if such is printed on
used toilet-paper and otherwise can not be independently replicated,
such as the wussy 3 photons per minute that supposedly gets detected
from those supposedly human deployed retroreflectors upon our physically
dark moon. Trust me, you don't want to go there.
As you've stipulated, and the proof is well established, atmosphere and
other factors distorts a terrestrial laser beam, to the point that
pretty much regardless of how tight the original beam starts out, it's
target if without atmosphere and if situated at 384,000 km and using 550
nm becomes illuminated to roughly 2 km in diameter (3.14e6 m2), worse
yet (3+ km) if using IR.
Of course any little retroreflector bounce is downright next to
impossible at 1100 nm (at least it still can't be independently
replicated), because the moon itself is such a good IR reflector, and
secondly for getting what damn few retroreflected photons as possible
back through our polluted atmosphere is unlikely unless the
retroreflector itself were of 100 m2 and/or the photon detector was
KECK. However, even a mere joule of a 450 nm laser beam if generated
from the earthshine illuminated lunar surface and directed towards Earth
would have easily become visible to the naked eye, and certainly
otherwise fully detected via a small area photon sensor (such as the CCD
in a good camera) that was specifically focused upon the general
physical location of that laser signal, whereas a full frame of our moon
would be more than sufficient.
As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
being allowed to know about our moon.
Our moon's L1 would clearly provide the nearly ideal platform for
establishing a laser communications link to/from Venus, as well as on
behalf of many other planets and of their moons (obviously including
Earth and our moon). The moon's L1 to whatever else is in space is
simply going to represent exceptional data throughput per given joule of
applied energy, and over exceptional distances at that because the given
divergence of a transmitted beam can be forced down to 0.005 mr, and
it'll retain that divergence.
TeaTime
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> surprised me and wrote in message
news:20e0a2859f2a7526cf7...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
> Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
> getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.
References please? (not disbelieving, but interested in facts and figures)
> The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
> 425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
> perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.
An old geezer like me might struggle beyond 400nm, but why do we need to SEE
our laser signal?
> 450 nm or even 425 nm should not be any problem going betwween planets,
> especially if at least one of those planets was utilizing a satellite or
> moon based laser cannon.
Agreed.
>> As a guide, 0.05 millirad diversion will give you about a 700 mile
>> diameter
>> circle on the earth from your moon's L1 position. Oops, I used miles
>> again.
>> At that range, to stand a chance of reliable reception I think you'd need
>> to
>> be looking at a lot tighter beam. The set-up they use to measure the
>> distance to the moon creates reflected spots about 2 miles across only
>> and
>> it still requires a 3.5 metre reflector to pick it up the this end.
>> Atmospheric thermals and general turbulence adds some more divergence
>> too.
>> As for data packets 10ms x 10 every second is a 10:1 duty cycle which is
>> pretty standard application.
>
> You are a very easily dumbfounded soul. Therefore you'll believe in
> absolutely anything that's in official print, even if such is printed on
> used toilet-paper and otherwise can not be independently replicated,
> such as the wussy 3 photons per minute that supposedly gets detected
> from those supposedly human deployed retroreflectors upon our physically
> dark moon. Trust me, you don't want to go there.
What did I say above that exposes me as 'easily dumbfounded'? Allegedly,
the laser is bounced off not only the Apollo team's sheet reflector, but
also the 'suitcase reflectors' dropped by them darn Russkys' unmanned probe.
Allegedly, they compare readings and take averages.
> As you've stipulated, and the proof is well established, atmosphere and
> other factors distorts a terrestrial laser beam, to the point that
> pretty much regardless of how tight the original beam starts out, it's
> target if without atmosphere and if situated at 384,000 km and using 550
> nm becomes illuminated to roughly 2 km in diameter (3.14e6 m2), worse
> yet (3+ km) if using IR.
Agreed.
> Of course any little retroreflector bounce is downright next to
> impossible at 1100 nm (at least it still can't be independently
> replicated), because the moon itself is such a good IR reflector, and
> secondly for getting what damn few retroreflected photons as possible
> back through our polluted atmosphere is unlikely unless the
> retroreflector itself were of 100 m2 and/or the photon detector was
> KECK. However, even a mere joule of a 450 nm laser beam if generated
> from the earthshine illuminated lunar surface and directed towards Earth
> would have easily become visible to the naked eye, and certainly
> otherwise fully detected via a small area photon sensor (such as the CCD
> in a good camera) that was specifically focused upon the general
> physical location of that laser signal, whereas a full frame of our moon
> would be more than sufficient.
What a shame they couldn't leave a laser in the Sea of Tranquility, giving a
hefty pulse once a month encoding a caesium clock time signal and marker
pulse. Solar powered, it would have been so fucking useful for a whole host
of reasons.
> As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
> specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
> down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
> off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
> as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
> course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
> being allowed to know about our moon.
There you go again with the conspiracy theory thing. Now I'd love to know
if that was all happening for real, but what real evidence is there for it?
And don't tell me I'm gullible, or deist, or all the rest of your
terminological libel - give us something to go on. Oh - and I spent hours
poring over those Venus lava flows and I have to say I can't see a damned
thing which is definitely and obviously artificial in that landscape.
Possible, yes. A done deal, no. Got something more defined to look at?
> Our moon's L1 would clearly provide the nearly ideal platform for
> establishing a laser communications link to/from Venus, as well as on
> behalf of many other planets and of their moons (obviously including
> Earth and our moon). The moon's L1 to whatever else is in space is
> simply going to represent exceptional data throughput per given joule of
> applied energy, and over exceptional distances at that because the given
> divergence of a transmitted beam can be forced down to 0.005 mr, and
> it'll retain that divergence.
Agreed.
> Brad Guth
I'm running with ya, but whether we'll reach the touchline ...
Brad Guth
low and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status: Your
message has been refused."
"TeaTime" <lickns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HgBdh.930$Z56...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net
> > Extremely little if any 1100 nm gets through those thick clouds of
> > Venus, but 425 nm is actually relatively effective, especially at
> > getting through the S8 polluted atmosphere of Venus.
>
> References please? (not disbelieving, but interested in facts and figures)
Besides the matter of multiple facts provided by Russian and those of
our NASA missions, as to the raw 2650 w/m2 of available spectrum, and of
that highly filtered sunlight that's still getting through, there's also
research from John Ackerman about the potential layer of S8 that's
rather taboo/nondisclosure because it's not supposed to exist. I also
have a little something else of what sorts of photons accomplish best at
getting through such a sulphur polluted medium, whereas 425~450 turns
out being the least attenuated.
> > The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees the
> > 425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
> > perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.
>
> An old geezer like me might struggle beyond 400nm, but why do we need to SEE
> our laser signal?
We don't, but perhaps they do, or at least it would be polite if we
started out with whatever's detectable by the Venusian eye, or via
whatever else they might biologically or instrument wise detect photons
with.
> What did I say above that exposes me as 'easily dumbfounded'?
Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?
> Allegedly, the laser is bounced off not only the Apollo team's sheet
> reflector, but also the 'suitcase reflectors' dropped by them darn
> Russkys' unmanned probe.
> Allegedly, they compare readings and take averages.
Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
Allegedly the crew of Apollo 13 had managed to actually orbit the moon
once in person (I'd actually have to buy into that one as having been
doable). Allegedly a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio was perfectly doable way
back then, but oddly such impressive fly-by-rocket capability can't be
obtained as of today (not even close). Allegedly Venus was
stealth/invisible throughout A11, A14 and A16. Allegedly the their
highly conditional Kodak laws of photon and film physics had worked
entirely different while upon thir passive moon. Allegedly their
raw/naked moon was xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and so forth for a
few dozen other allegedly interesting matters related to our apparently
guano island like moon that's allegedly entirely passive and with not
hardly 10% the meteorites as available on Mars (most Apollo EVA
locations were not even 1% as debris populated as Mars).
> What a shame they couldn't leave a laser in the Sea of Tranquility, giving a
> hefty pulse once a month encoding a caesium clock time signal and marker
> pulse. Solar powered, it would have been so fucking useful for a whole host
> of reasons.
They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
wanted to promote.
For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
and other nasty environmental factors.
> > As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
> > specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
> > down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
> > off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
> > as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
> > course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
> > being allowed to know about our moon.
>
> There you go again with the conspiracy theory thing. Now I'd love to know
> if that was all happening for real, but what real evidence is there for it?
There's no such "conspiracy theory". It's simply a hard matter of
absolute and easily replicated fact, that a soft-modified KECK
instrument can resolve down to one meter unless your naysay mindset of
such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in the way. If need
be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help finish off the
demonstration of what KECK can accommodate if roughly 99% of each
primary mirror is masked off, and otherwise pulling out all the stops
(that's organ-speak for making an all out maximum effort).
> And don't tell me I'm gullible, or deist, or all the rest of your
> terminological libel - give us something to go on. Oh - and I spent hours
> poring over those Venus lava flows and I have to say I can't see a damned
> thing which is definitely and obviously artificial in that landscape.
> Possible, yes. A done deal, no. Got something more defined to look at?
Your review of Venus can't hardly be accomplished via braille or that of
a broken glass eye, and perhaps you weren't even fondling the proper
image.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
If need be, I'll go extremely slow, as in step by step, or rather pixel
by pixel of the roughly 5% area that's most important. Trust me, it
isn't the least bit hocus-pocus, although it is 100% deductively
subjective to the eye and mindset of the beholder.
Brad Guth
moderation worthy) about your message as posted below?
Every freaking time that I get into a fully constructive topic feedback
loop, lo and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status:
Your message has been refused." Therefore, try as I may, I'm
technically banished, as in being unable to post a reply directly back
onto your original.
"TeaTime" <lickns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HgBdh.930$Z56...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net
> I'm running with ya, but whether we'll reach the touchline ...
In that case, I'll share a few of my spare lose cannons, by which we
each might kick a few butts, that is as long as we're on the same set of
tracks and headed for that same "touchline".
TeaTime
> Every freaking time I get into a fully constructive topic feedback loop,
> low and behold, I get the pesky Mailgate/Usenet message "Status: Your
> message has been refused."
Try getting a decent news server and/or decent ISP then?
> Besides the matter of multiple facts provided by Russian and those of
> our NASA missions, as to the raw 2650 w/m2 of available spectrum, and of
> that highly filtered sunlight that's still getting through, there's also
> research from John Ackerman about the potential layer of S8 that's
> rather taboo/nondisclosure because it's not supposed to exist. I also
> have a little something else of what sorts of photons accomplish best at
> getting through such a sulphur polluted medium, whereas 425~450 turns
> out being the least attenuated.
So where's the references that support the idea that shorter visible
wavelengths propagate through CO2, H2SO4 and S8 clouds more efficiently than
infra red?
>> > The human and much less nocturnal eye can't see 1100 nm, but it sees
>> > the
>> > 425 nm just fine and dandy, especially the nocturnal eye which might
>> > perform best at 450 nm and otherwise can detect 350 nm.
> We don't, but perhaps they do, or at least it would be polite if we
> started out with whatever's detectable by the Venusian eye, or via
> whatever else they might biologically or instrument wise detect photons
> with.
What makes you think an alien's eye will be attuned to the same wavelengths
as ours? If they are used to conditions like those on Venus they more
likely peak in the reds than the greens and blues.
> Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?
I used the term 'allegedly' in referring to the placing of reflectors on the
moon. I also made reference to the Russians' unmanned probe which also
deployed a reflector there.
> Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
> WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
> somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
> those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
Off topic political whinging - not relevant to the discussion.
> Allegedly the crew of Apollo 13 had managed to actually orbit the moon
> once in person (I'd actually have to buy into that one as having been
> doable). Allegedly a 60:1 rocket/payload ratio was perfectly doable way
> back then, but oddly such impressive fly-by-rocket capability can't be
> obtained as of today (not even close). Allegedly Venus was
> stealth/invisible throughout A11, A14 and A16. Allegedly the their
> highly conditional Kodak laws of photon and film physics had worked
> entirely different while upon thir passive moon. Allegedly their
> raw/naked moon was xenon lamp spectrum illuminated, and so forth for a
> few dozen other allegedly interesting matters related to our apparently
> guano island like moon that's allegedly entirely passive and with not
> hardly 10% the meteorites as available on Mars (most Apollo EVA
> locations were not even 1% as debris populated as Mars).
I don't think there are too many people around now who don't realise that
the moon landings videos were studio shot. There are just too many
anomalies that have never been satisfactorily answered. However, the
suit-mounted caneras they had would never have produced anything worth using
so of course the cold-war driven publicity requirement was for something
more 'Hollywood'. None of that says they did or didn't go there. I keep an
open mind on that issue.
> They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
> behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
> of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
> wanted to promote.
Details of those instruments? references?
> For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
> boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
> deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
> joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
> joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
> have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
> weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
> and other nasty environmental factors.
Agreed - that's why I said ' shame they couldn't ' .
>> > As photon detector way over-kill, a modified KECK instrument if
>> > specifically utilized as a nifty photon detector, can in fact resolve
>> > down to something better than one meter at 384,000 km by simply masking
>> > off 99% of each primary mirror and utilizing their f40 secondary mirror
>> > as focused onto the 1.75 nm pixels of a commercially available CCD. Of
>> > course that sort of image resolution would also show us more than we're
>> > being allowed to know about our moon.
Not being expert in optics at that level, I'd value outside opinion on that
one.
> There's no such "conspiracy theory". It's simply a hard matter of
> absolute and easily replicated fact, that a soft-modified KECK
> instrument can resolve down to one meter unless your naysay mindset of
> such a big and clearly dumbfounded head gets stuck in the way. If need
> be, a quality 10X optical projection lens will help finish off the
> demonstration of what KECK can accommodate if roughly 99% of each
> primary mirror is masked off, and otherwise pulling out all the stops
> (that's organ-speak for making an all out maximum effort).
Yes, I know what an organ-stop is. They come in various varieties like
diapaisons, flutes, foundations and condoms. I also know that a questioning
mind is not equal to a big dumbfounded head. It means I am not gullible
enough to simply believe anything someone tells me without satisfying myself
of the facts aforehand. I question your conspiracy scenaroes just as I
question whether man landed on the moon and a whole host of other things
stated as 'fact' by so many over the years.
> Your review of Venus can't hardly be accomplished via braille or that of
> a broken glass eye, and perhaps you weren't even fondling the proper
> image.
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
> If need be, I'll go extremely slow, as in step by step, or rather pixel
> by pixel of the roughly 5% area that's most important. Trust me, it
> isn't the least bit hocus-pocus, although it is 100% deductively
> subjective to the eye and mindset of the beholder.
> -
> Brad Guth
Yes - it is 100% deductively subjective to the eye and mindset of the
beholder. Personally, I'd LOVE to see something there - but I don't. The
resolution and range is nowhere good enough to differentiate between natural
features and what may be the remains of artificial structures. It just
looks like lava flows, canyons, rills, etc. Interesting topology granted,
but the high level of volcanism is well documented.
Brad Guth
> Try getting a decent news server and/or decent ISP then?
You either don't get it, or you're actually a Usenet rusemaster (aka
spool or mole) at heart. The news reader has absolutely nothing to do
with my reply getting banished or otherwise blocked, or are you really
into the notion of suggesting that you are in fact that pathetically
dumb and dumber?
> So where's the references that support the idea that shorter visible
> wavelengths propagate through CO2, H2SO4 and S8 clouds more efficiently than
> infra red?
Good grief, they are within one or more of of my old documents that
apparently are too encrypted for you to read. (sorry about that)
I'll have to see what I can dig back up.
> What makes you think an alien's eye will be attuned to the same wavelengths
> as ours? If they are used to conditions like those on Venus they more
> likely peak in the reds than the greens and blues.
450 nm is simply more than likely the peak visual performance on such a
relatively dark planet (especially of their nighttime season), than 550
nm is for us. Shift everything 100 nm towards UV and you're looking at
what's nocturnal and/or evolved in order to best deal with such filtered
light, as getting through those thick clouds of Venus.
> > Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?
>
> I used the term 'allegedly' in referring to the placing of reflectors on the
> moon. I also made reference to the Russians' unmanned probe which also
> deployed a reflector there.
You'll have to keep using that "allegedly" qualifier, as it's about all
that you've got going on behalf of sustaining your pagan NASA or even of
those USSR efforts.
> > Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
> > WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
> > somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
> > those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
>
> Off topic political whinging - not relevant to the discussion.
Silly boy. Life itself is totally "relevant", as well as more often
sucks than not. So, why are such spendy as well as lethal lies upon
lies not "relevant"?
> I don't think there are too many people around now who don't realise that
> the moon landings videos were studio shot. There are just too many
> anomalies that have never been satisfactorily answered. However, the
> suit-mounted caneras they had would never have produced anything worth using
> so of course the cold-war driven publicity requirement was for something
> more 'Hollywood'. None of that says they did or didn't go there. I keep an
> open mind on that issue.
Most folks are absolutely deathly afraid of their own shadow, not to
mention afraid of those MIB. To question their pagan god(NASA) is
asking too much.
> > They allegedly had left much larger and complex instruments as left
> > behind that were good for nothing outside of the cloak and dagger reams
> > of whatever club NASA's O-ring collective of purely insider wizards
> > wanted to promote.
>
> Details of those instruments? references?
Good grief. Can't you go to any number of those bastard NASA/Apollo
pages upon pages, and pull it yourself? What the hell is wrong with
your PC or MAC, or is it just yourself that not being honest?
> > For roughly 10% the mass of one retroreflector (I believe less cost to
> > boot), and within the same or less volume, they could have easily
> > deployed a one degree or possibly two degree xenon strobe offering 10
> > joules, and perhaps by A16 or A17 could have managed to deploy a 100
> > joule strobe as a relatively simple and reliable transponder that should
> > have been technically doable, especially since small/portable lasers
> > weren't quite prime time technology that could have survived the IR/FIR
> > and other nasty environmental factors.
>
> Agreed - that's why I said ' shame they couldn't ' .
But they could have so easily accomplished that, and so much more. So,
where's the "shame"? (other than we've been snookered)
> Not being expert in optics at that level, I'd value outside opinion on that
> one.
Whatever make you a happy camper. Obviously you're the expert and/or
all-knowing wizard that can't be bothered, even if thy boat is getting
rocked.
> Yes - it is 100% deductively subjective to the eye and mindset of the
> beholder. Personally, I'd LOVE to see something there - but I don't. The
> resolution and range is nowhere good enough to differentiate between natural
> features and what may be the remains of artificial structures. It just
> looks like lava flows, canyons, rills, etc. Interesting topology granted,
> but the high level of volcanism is well documented.
Please do tell us, what else did you see with your white cane?
Did you bother to utilize the composite 225 m/pixel version?
Did you bother to crop out just the 5% that I'm talking about?
Did you bother to PhotoShop push it a little (say 3X or better)?
Did you see the rather large and thus sgnificant fluid arch?
Did you bother to flush the toilet?
Brad Guth
Is this one of your Usenet games? I can obviously post the following
context into other than your original contribution as listed below.
"TeaTime" <lickns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6LGdh.3451$Xo6...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net
> Try getting a decent news server and/or decent ISP then?
You either don't get it, or you're actually a Usenet rusemaster (aka
spook or mole) at heart. The news reader has absolutely nothing to do
Brad Guth
good measure.
Why is Mailgate/Usenet or perhaps yourself into stealth topic
moderation?
Is this one of your silly Usenet games? I can obviously post the
following context into other than your original contribution as listed
below.
"TeaTime" <lickns...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6LGdh.3451$Xo6...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net
> Try getting a decent news server and/or decent ISP then?
You either don't get it, or you're actually a Usenet rusemaster (aka
spook or mole) at heart. The news reader has absolutely nothing to do
with my reply getting banished or otherwise blocked, or are you really
into the silly notion of suggesting that you are in fact that
pathetically dumb and dumber?
> So where's the references that support the idea that shorter visible
> wavelengths propagate through CO2, H2SO4 and S8 clouds more efficiently
> than infra red?
Good grief and Christ almighty back on a stick, the last that I recall
they are within one or more of my old documents, that which apparently
are too encrypted for you to read. (sorry about that)
I'll have to see what I can dig back up, and report back.
> What makes you think an alien's eye will be attuned to the same wavelengths
> as ours? If they are used to conditions like those on Venus they more
> likely peak in the reds than the greens and blues.
450 nm is simply more than likely the peak visual performance on such a
relatively dark planet (I believe we're talking roughly 12 j/m2 by day
and especially dim as of their geothermally toasty nighttime season),
rather than 550 nm is for us. Shift everything 100 nm towards UV and
you're looking at what's nocturnal and/or evolved in order to best deal
with such filtered light, as getting through those thick and S8 loaded
clouds of Venus.
> > Try that pesky walking on the moon thing, or was that a joke?
>
> I used the term 'allegedly' in referring to the placing of reflectors on
> the moon. I also made reference to the Russians' unmanned probe which
> also deployed a reflector there.
You'll have to keep using that "allegedly" qualifier, as it's about all
that you've got going on behalf of sustaining your pagan NASA or even of
those equally unprovable USSR efforts.
> > Allegedly there was a cold-war. Allegedly Iraq had lots of those Muslim
> > WMD. Allegedly Boeing 747 fuel tanks explode for no apparent reason and
> > somehow in spite of the laws of physics. Allegedly our government and
> > those of other governments never lie their butts off, and then some.
>
> Off topic political whinging - not relevant to the discussion.
Silly boy. Life itself is totally "relevant", as well as more often
sucks than not. So, why are such spendy as well as lethal lies upon
lies not "relevant" in your koran?
where's the "shame"? (other than the shame of our having been snookered)
> Not being expert in optics at that level, I'd value outside opinion on that
> one.
Whatever makes you into a happy camper. Obviously you're the expert
and/or all-knowing wizard that can't be bothered, even if thy boat is
getting rocked.
> Yes - it is 100% deductively subjective to the eye and mindset of the
> beholder. Personally, I'd LOVE to see something there - but I don't. The
> resolution and range is nowhere good enough to differentiate between natural
> features and what may be the remains of artificial structures. It just
> looks like lava flows, canyons, rills, etc. Interesting topology granted,
> but the high level of volcanism is well documented.
Please do tell us, what else did you see with your white cane?
Did you bother to utilize the composite 225 m/pixel version?
Did you bother to crop out just the 5% that I'm talking about?
Did you bother to PhotoShop push it a little (say 3X or better)?
Did you see the rather large and thus sgnificant fluid arch?
Did you bother to flush the toilet? (after you removed your naysay head)
Brad Guth
selectively stealth topic/author moderation taking place.
It's rather obvious, as it is entirely pathetic and only more proof
positive that I'm even more right than I'd thought.
It is not my PC or that of my wussy ISP, although it certainly could be
Mailgate spook/mole insiders or even the MI/NSA/KGB wizards of GOOGLE
doing their usual cloak and dagger thing on behalf of their Skull and
Bone partners in their usual Old Testament crimes against humanity
(including against those of their own kind).
TeaTime
I can see both your posts above, Brad and I've been conversing with you
openly and asking sensible questions. I haven't attempted to naysay your
basic ideas, only discuss the finer details. I can't see where you're
getting the author moderation thing from - your posts are here aren't they?
Your last main reply to me was extremely rude and most of it without any
good reason whatsoever. You still persist in calling me dumb and dumber, so
I can't see much point in continuing with you. I'm probably the only ally
you had here but once again you've blown it by your paranoia and rudeness. I
am not blind and yes I did look at the high resolution tiff image on the URL
you posted here. I do see the so-called 'arch' and studied that area ion
some detail. The width of the photo by my estimation is around 22km. That
makes the wavy line around 500 metres wide. If you follow the 'road' all
the way up to the plateau it originated from you can see it is a lava flow.
I do not believe the lower section of it is an arch - it looks to me like a
raised bluff against a darker background. You have to remember the pic was
taken from 618 km away.
Brad Guth
> I can see both your posts above, Brad and I've been conversing with you
> openly and asking sensible questions. I haven't attempted to naysay your
> basic ideas, only discuss the finer details. I can't see where you're
> getting the author moderation thing from - your posts are here aren't they?
No, they are not where they are supposed to be. Obviously you think I'm
a liar.
As I'd said before, that I 'can not' post directly into several of
'your' contributions, thus I'm having to work-around by posting to other
portions of this topic that are still allowing my reply to stick. Got
it!
Perhaps it's your doings that's at fault, because it most certainly
isn't me.
> Your last main reply to me was extremely rude and most of it without any
> good reason whatsoever. You still persist in calling me dumb and dumber, so
> I can't see much point in continuing with you. I'm probably the only ally
> you had here but once again you've blown it by your paranoia and rudeness. I
> am not blind and yes I did look at the high resolution tiff image on the URL
> you posted here. I do see the so-called 'arch' and studied that area ion
> some detail. The width of the photo by my estimation is around 22km. That
> makes the wavy line around 500 metres wide. If you follow the 'road' all
> the way up to the plateau it originated from you can see it is a lava flow.
> I do not believe the lower section of it is an arch - it looks to me like a
> raised bluff against a darker background. You have to remember the pic was
> taken from 618 km away.
Thanks anyway, but I don't have to remember squat. It's my stinking
though honestly deductive interpretation that's got the likes of
yourself all huffy, and downright tight butt-crack naysay no matters
what is potentially there to behold. In other words, try a little
harder, or at least break a little wind before you explode.
I suppose you're the one as having pointed out all of those Muslim WMD
that I nor anyone else could see. (I just had to toss that one on the
pile. Sorry about that.)
The 36 look/pixel truth worthly nature of those 225 m/pixel resolution
composite images, which can be conservatively pushed by at least 3X and
rounded off via whatever PhotoShop, as such isn't nearly as difficult as
you're making it.
BTW; I never said anything about using the TIFF format, whereas there's
absolutely nothing the least bit improper or otherwise wrong with the
650 k GIF format, and I never once stipulated that there wasn't a number
of lava paterns to behold. In fact, that rather substantial arch could
be of a mud/fluid like substance that's most likely hotter than hell (as
it should be).
What do you think about the not so little bridge? or is that very
horizontal and flat span also another one of a Venusian kind of weird
lava flow created formation, that just so happens to look exactly like a
bridge that's connecting to a fairly complex road at either end, along
with lots of other highly unusual (aka other one of a kind) and
artificial looking patterns or as intelligent attributes associated?
Try using their GIF format, croping out just the specific area and
converting it if need be into JPAG if you like. Then send it to me as
GIF or JPAG, or otherwise post it for a look-see at whatever you've
accomplished. I'll even redo my efforts and share my results.
Brad Guth
about as truth-worthy of such pixels as they ever tend to get. As long
as we're looking at and subsequently interpreting as to whatever's as
large or larger than 225 meters per given dimension, there's not hardly
a better class of a more trust-worthy image in town, and especially
since it's nearly 3D worthy because of the original SAR 43 degree
observation or radar illumination angle and of having recorded all the
associated terrain that's perfectly natural looking. As for surrounding
all that's otherwise looking so gosh darn artificial/intelligent, of
depicting various complex structures as having been incorporated into
such a rational community like infrastructure, where no such ratioinal
paters should otherwise have existed.
BTW; this sort of deductive reasoning takes on a certain degree of
observationology expertise, and at best it still demands a good deal of
personal study time. In other words, it's not ever a snap observational
decision as typically imposed by literally all that claim they simply
can't see a damn thing, because alter all, it's supposedly so freaking
hot and nasty, so apparently it's down to the usual naysay mindset of
why even bother giving it a second thought.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Image croping or the digital method of resampling at 3X, 5X or possibly
even 9X isn't by itself distorting a damn thing, nor is the matter of
using the unsharp mask or whatever your photo enlargement software likes
to call such a filter, imposing a problem. That is unless you
intentionally over-push those unsharp (or whatever photo
enhance/clean-up) filter(s) to the point of no return, as even I have an
old dog that's smart enough to do that much.
Our 'tomcat' image wizard on behalf of hyping Mars at every possible
turn in the road, whereas he wants us to see what only he sees in
miniature form, as supposedly representing his itsy-bitsy Martian life.
I've tried but still can't put any of those little Martian pixels into
sufficient agreement with whatever is apparently seen as intelligent
life by 'tomcat'. Sorry about that. (I guess one of us is a little
crazier or more snookered than the other)
So, if you still can't see a damn thing, perhaps you can simply post
your best image enlargement, in that I too will see the exactly same
nothing that you claim to see. For all we know, you could be right.
Brad Guth
expertise and deductive reasoning, and that's because of the imaging
format and resolution is seldom ideal. It is a matter of our realizing
upon what's perfectly natural as opposed to what's unnatural looking,
and not just per given item but for a given collection of associated
items or rather pixel patterns that either fit or they do not fit into
their respective category.
There are certain things the laws of physics and those of planetology
and/or the geology of nature allows to happen, and there are other laws
or rules as to what can be artificially or rather intelligently modified
in order to suit the needs of those in charge of a given location.
Taking a given image and then automatically naysay excluding whatever is
the least bit weird or unusual simply because it doesn't happen to fit
within your mindset as to whatever a artificial/intelligent modification
might involve, isn't going to yield a proper degree of understanding as
to what is artificial or natural.
In other words, you folks can't honestly claim to see one item of
relative minimal size as representing a perfectly natural geology caused
terrain of lava or rock formation and/or that of a 'fluid arch' as
interpreted from each of their pixel patterns, while otherwise excluding
those much larger and/or more robust and certainly complex looking items
as having equal or greater numbers of their pixels that interpret as
representing a very artificial/intelligent looking set of patterns that
simply can't coexist in nature. But that's exactly what naysayers
and/or rusemasters do, whereas they exclude upon whatever rocks thy boat
because that's all they've done for all of their silly lives, even if it
means taking us into another war over stealth/invisible WMD's that never
existed in the first place.
BTW; 99.9% of this Usenet is very much pro GW Bush or rather pro
whatever available puppet is accomplishing their dastardly deeds,
whereas those saying otherwise have most often proven by way of their
past and current actions that they too are in favor of sustaining their
little part of this mainstream status quo at all cost. Therefore, it's
not hardly a wonder that those in charge of keeping such lids on tight
are also within this same 99.9% category as those in charge of this
social/religious/political fiasco that has recently caused so much
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, w/o remorse and with no
apparent end in sight. (AKA birds of a feather flock together)
BTW No.2; there's no question that Venus is a hot and nasty environment
of mostly extremely active geothermal considerations.
Brad Guth
> I can see both your posts above, Brad and I've been conversing with you
> openly and asking sensible questions. I haven't attempted to naysay your
> basic ideas, only discuss the finer details. I can't see where you're
> getting the author moderation thing from - your posts are here aren't they?
As it turns out, since they couldn't manage to terminate my poor old PC,
instead they turned to corrupting my local ISP, and it was that method
which did the intended job of messing most everything up, and thus
having remotely cut me off.
Would you like to know the name of that ISP which claims being totally
dumbfounded?
Pretty silly of those MIB that you like so much.
Brad Guth
Got that nifty 60:1 ratio of GLOW rocket/payload that'll put such nifty
tonnage into safely orbiting our moon, with payload and fuel to spare?
Brad Guth
Too bad that our own nearby moon remains as so taboo/nondisclosure, so
much so that even MEL1/(moon's L1) is still off limits. I guess there's
something dark and scary out there.
I believe it's very true and open minded that God, God's ETs as his/her
minion helpers, or possibly if given hundreds of billions of years via
the purely random happenstance of cosmic energies and fluctuations, or
at least such as within our local 225 million year galactic clock, and
otherwise as due to that pesky little gravity thing of essentially
everything being in orbit about something other that's of equal or
better mass, is what could bring the likes of our solar system into
close contact of the Sirius Oort cloud (such as every 100,000 some odd
years) for a serious game of foreign DNA/RNA exchange via orbital
mechanics and lithobraking panspermia.
With somewhat better words;
Utilizing salty and otherwise icy (Sedna or Ceres like) orbs as proto
moons providing a viable means on behalf of transferring life as we know
it; Seems rather old hat, so why the hell not?
Lithopanspermia and you
I have no faith based or other purely scientific or physics problems
with the likes of multi teratonne lithobraking transfers of minerals,
salty ice and of the sorts of DNA/RNA life within that cosmic ice as we
know it, abd that's even if such opportunities having been intentionally
taken advantage of by way of sufficiently intelligent ETs having a
master plan.
"Microbe experiment suggests we could all be Martians" sounds perfectly
doable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1989431,00.html
"To their surprise, the scientists found the lichen and bacterial spores
survived all but the most cataclysmic impacts up to 45 billion pascals.
The cyanobacteria survived shocks of up to 10 billion pascals."
To honestly think a little outside the 'Earth only' box of evolution
that somehow favored none other than the human species; If much larger
than microbe/spore life as we know it were surrounded or otherwise
covered by 100 km of salty ice, whereas a Buick and passengers within
could easily have survived the transfer, especially if such mergers were
of a sucker-punch glancing blow from behind, in which case you wouldn't
even require the Buick.
"Rusty" <reuben...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169000261.3...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Interesting theory, but Earth with its oceans, undersea smokers,
> lightning, volcanos, etc etc etc wouldn't seem to have had any trouble
> forming life locally. You would think it would be the reverse and earth
> may have seeded life to Mars by this method.
Lithopanspermia seems perfectly doable. After all, Earth's life was
almost entirely litho transfer based, if not intentionally terraformed
by way of ET-4H clubs in order to suit their motives and whatever weird
agenda.
Life going from Earth outward via some cosmic happenstance is a bit of a
stretch, though possible since we seem to get a few spores from Venus
each and very 19 month cycle.
Was our sun and of its solar wind more active in the past? (I'd thought
it was usually the other way around).
When did Earth get its salty oceans, its seasonal tilt, its Arctic ocean
basin and its moon that's more than a thousand fold by ratio bigger
and/or more massive by ratio than any other known moon?
Why are there intelligent human records from the end of, while during
and even a few from before the last ice age that simply fail to mention
or otherwise take into consideration that nifty GW(global warming) moon
of ours?
Why is there no verifiable hard science of Earth's environment having
that seasonal tilt or moon prior to 10,000 BC, if not a bit more recent?
Why was early/proto human life on Earth so monoseason (w/o
summer/winter)?
Why did early/proto Venus have a beard?
Why is our extremely unusual moon still so salty?
An even better question is; Why is my "Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o
Moon" and a few other topics excluded/banished (as "Mailgate: Message
not available" or simply dropped out of sight), from within the
rec.org.mensa Mailgate/Usenet index?
Brad Guth
I see that our warm and fuzzy Mailgate/Usenet spooks have made the topic
"Laser off the Moon" vanish into less than thin air, as another one of
those "Mailgate: Message not available".
It seems our our Old Testament thumping faith based scientists are
simply paranoid about damn near everything that rocks their status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP, including their own shadows. At least terraforming
our moon or simply digging into that salty sucker for obtaining a safe
habitat is technically doable from within our own back yard of known
expertise and resources, and best of all, we the badly bleeding
taxpayers can 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 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 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 space depot and 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 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.
In order to accomplish the moon, and live 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 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.
You folks out there in Usenet's dumbfounded land of snookered fools and
village idiots do 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
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 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 is 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 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 their fair share of those 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 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 unavoidably of
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.
Brad Guth
Revised Guth swag/rant of the global warming day.
Topic: USA urges scientists to block out sun
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b3689ba0bdcb4f1c587...@mygate.mailgate.org
Perhaps far better than relocating Sedna into our L1 (at best that's
a good century away no matters what), as a somewhat better notion
yet, we could just resolve all sorts of pesky problems by way of
moving our global roasting moon out to Earth's L1. Thereby getting
rid of all sorts of spare mascon/tidal energy that's inside and out
affecting our environment in a very GW and geophysical bad sort of
way.
How hard could that possibly be?
After all, it's already coasting efficiently along in a good enough
far off orbit to start with, and there's hardly a village idiot soul
on Earth That's smart enough to give a tinkers damn about it.
We'd just end up having ourselves a somewhat better sol+moon 24 hour
tide, which should be much less disruptive than the ongoing pesky
tidal fiasco we've got to deal with as is.
If subsequently our Earth gets too cold, with hardly any applied energy
we could simply send our moon into the sun, or we could try the good old
reliable alternative of simply polluting the living crapolla out of
mother Earth (we're already expert wizards at doing that), creating butt
loads of nasty soot and the full gauntlet range of deploying toxic and
environmental trashing chemicals everywhere, or if push comes down to
shove, simply relocate the wealthy and most powerful folks to our moon
that's rather efficiently parked at Earth's L1, or perhaps employ WW-III
as our local global energy domination war to end all such silly wars
because, by then we'd be pretty much out of the required energy for
making all of those nifty chemical and nuclear bombs, by which utilizing
our healthy cache of such items should otherwise compensate by way of
warming things back up for at least another decade or so.
-
Relocating our moon to Earth's L1 may seem a touch daunting, but with a
yaysay mindset and a constructive sense of motivation, most anything
becomes possible, especially if it pertains to saving your own butt or
of those butts you most admirer or worship.
The last time I'd checked, our somewhat salty and possibly semi-hollow
moon only weighed 7.35e22 kg.
Therefore, 7.35e13 kg of applied force (that's only 73.5 gigatonnes) for
a considerable amount of time should do the trick. Or, if we played our
billiard cards just right and diverted a few NEOs into our moon at just
the right timing and angle (china seems to be coming right along with
that sort of kinetic impact expertise), that should get the old ball
rolling at least in the right direction, and once and for all terminate
those pesky NEOs at the same time. I'd have to call that one yet
another win-win for old gipper.
Of course the alternative of simply implementing terajoules worth of
clean renewable terrestrial energy might stay off the continual global
warming trend that's primarily caused by our absolutely massive and
unfortunately nearby moon, and as otherwise assisted along by our own
arrogant and greedy ways of having rather badly done things for the past
couple of centuries. In which case the moon can stay put and the
LSE-CM/ISS can still become a good part of that saving Earth analogy, by
way of giving us loads of clean tether dipole extracted energy plus
efficient access as to whatever can be rather easily pillaged and
plundered out of the moon itself (we could even put Halliburton plus the
likes of Exxon and ENRON in charge, because, it shouldn't hadly matter
how badly they manage to trash our moon).
TheEnigmaMachine
Guthian mind vomit wandered about Lagrange point #2 and got stuck there.
Inquiring minds that don't want to know should visit Brad's post-anal dark
matter at that location.
Brad Guth
First of all, taboo/nondisclosure worthy topic or not, Earth w/o moon
would still be humanly livable, although soon enough becoming an icy
cold sucker and we'd all have to learn how to effectively snowshoe and
ski. However, Earth w/o magnetosphere will soon become a larger version
of Mars, and thus not so surface livable, especially as the solar winds
rip and excavate away at our atmosphere that's otherwise getting more
and more locked up in the form of ice, soon to become partially polar
dry-ice.
An ongoing question is: What can we best afford to move into Earth's L1
that'll give us the most interactive control of shade, and still provide
us with multiple other nifty considerations that are much better off
than we currently have to work with?
The previous pun of a notion that's on behalf of relocating Sedna to
Earth's L1 might eventually become one of our best solutions for
accomplishing a solar shade that's a little big but otherwise just about
the right size of solar shade. However, as for my going along with John
Schilling, I'd have to agree that a relocation of Sedna to Earth's L1 is
a stretch, not to mention a serious long term alternative that sucks at
being at least a good century at best away from benefiting our GW
situation, that's only going to get worse per year after year no matters
what. Or, don't you folks fully appreciate where the vast majority of
our ice age thawing and ongoing GW energy is actually coming from?
Did by chance any of you folks even once bother to ask our resident
lord/wizard William Mook, as to exactly how much tonnage of U238/U235
we're talking about, as per relocating our very own moon, to Earth's L1?
Or, what if instead of wasting a perfectly good 2000 kg cache of U238
that we're likely going to need for WW-III, we simply utilized Sedna's
arriving worth of KE, as for having a direct impact at just the right
timing and angle?
Say if Sedna's icy mass of 5e21 kg were orchestrated on behalf of
arriving at the final moon impact velocity of 2 km/s = 1e28 x eff joules
Even if that were at 10% KE impact efficiency, that's offering 1e27
joules, although a rear-ender/(sucker punch) at 1 km/sec would become a
much softer 2.5e26 joules, that by rights should still accomplish a
little something impressive.
-
Alternative if not a whole lot better local Plan-B: Relocate our moon
Relocating lunar mass via L2 deployed tether, far out past the moon's L2
point of no return. Say going way out there for using this 2X L2, and
say we/robotics somehow manage to place 1e9 tonnes out there on the
tippy end of that nifty 2X L2 tethered distance away from the moon's CG,
a placement distance of roughly 129,400 km for starters seems perfectly
doable.
How much applied exit or delta-v force is that going to provide?
Here's the best preliminary math that seems about right.
2X moon L2 = 129,400 km
129,400 / 384,400 = .33663
Orbital velocity: 1.33663 x 1.023 km/s = 1.367 km/s
2X L2 orbital Earth velocity = 1.367 km/s (in relation to Earth)
2X L2 orbital moon velocity = 344.421 m/s (in relation to the moon)
Centripetal/Centrifugal force: Fc=MV2/r
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
If we're given the 2X L2 orbital mass of 1e12 kg (including whatever's
tether)
Moon's 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 9.167374e8 N = 93,481 tonnes
Earth/moon 2X L2: Fc=MV2/r = 3.637e9 N = 370,871 tonnes
That's a combined total of 464,353 tonnes of centrifugal applied force
that's worthy of accomplishing something, especially when applied over
the time span of perhaps a few years, of which I don't believe it'll
actually take all that long, or even nearly the 1e12 kg placement of
mass at the moon's 2X L2.
Roughly/swag speaking; using this moon L2 package of 1e12 kg in
tethered mass acting as a physical tug upon getting that nasty moon
further away from Earth, how long will it take for that task of getting
rid of our moon (relocated to Earth L1 that is)?
Seems having our moon relocated to Earth's L1 is actually a
multi-tasking win-win for accomplishing all sorts of future science and
space exploration, and otherwise of direct benefit to our environment,
and of most everything else I can think of seems better off. As for the
naysay or whatever negatives, at least thus far I have a list of zilch
to offer because, it even benefits my LSE-CM/ISS that can still deploy
its tether dipole element to within 4r of Earth, and there's lots more
to consider if you still have that yaysay open mindset to work with.
Brad Guth
news:3exvh.1521$KX1...@newsfe10.lga
Is that more jewspeak, like the time when you got others to put one of
your own kind on a stick?
Obviously you're way too dumbfounded to constructively share and share
alike, that is without blowing out another Old Testament gasket.
Brad Guth
Without hardly much question, our infomercial spewing space policy
sucks, while our moon remains as taboo/nondisclosure, and there's
intelligent other Life existing/coexisting on Venus is simply no lie.
However, in spite of our dumbfounded selves and the likes of our silly
infomercial spewing NASA, and that of their fearless resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush), there's plenty of what needs to get accomplished
that'll help to insure a future quality of terrestrial life that's a
whole lot less lethal and otherwise made affordable to most.
Because our moon's physically dark surface is actually made hotter by
day via solar influx energy than is the surface of Venus getting solar
heated, and it's certainly sufficiently naked enough as to being
cosmic/solar reactive as all get out, not to mention the unavoidable
tidal affects that get introduced into our polluted terrestrial
environment, are each representing perfectly good reasons for relocating
our moon further away from Earth, such as ideally locked into Earth's L1
sweet spot, even if it means a little interactive station-keeping effort
is in order.
In addition to all the other bad environmental news coming our way,
Earth may soon enough be w/o its nifty magnetosphere (at least running
on near empty), thus making our GW fiasco a somewhat minor issue for
those of us without sufficient loot for a good enough shelter or a
viable resource of affordable rad-hard food. In other pesky words,
where the hell is all of that supposed intelligent design expertise in
DNA/RNA genetics when you need it?
Since accomplishing most anything upon or even anywhere near our
hocus-pocus moon (where those regular laws of physics apparently do not
apply), which seems as though our moon is rather Usenet
taboo/nondisclosure (especially Mailgate/Usenet off limits), and since
folks here in this silly Usenet land of all that's spook/mole
orchestrated as mostly anti-think-tank as much naysayism as they can
muster, or otherwise stuck in their usual damage control cesspool mode
that simply can't manage to behave themselves, much less focus
constructively upon the original topic at hand; here's yet another of
my constructive GS(global shading) contributions, of related research
work that's in progress, to share and share alike:
Though not impossible, it is simply not all that likely that Earth's
moon emerged for whatever reason(s) from within mother Earth, whereas
more likely as having materialized from an incoming glancing sucker
punch, such as by that of a Sirius Oort cloud icy item, as for Earth
having received a nasty blow (say having created an arctic ocean basin
like impression, along with causing that seasonal tilt), by a very icy
proto-moon (possibly of 4,000 km).
For a brief example of this argument; If the orbital distance were made
half and thus the velocity would have to double because the mutual
gravity of attraction would have become 4X, therefore we'd have
introduced 16 fold more inside and out worth of centripetal/tidal energy
to deal with, and I'm not all that sure mother Earth would have stayed
glued together at that level of horrific gravitional and internal tidal
forced trauma, much less for cutting that orbital distance by yet
another half (making its previous orbit at 96,100 km and velocity of
4.092 km/s) would have to impose yet another 16 fold factor, or rather
suggesting 256 fold worse global warming trauma than what we currently
are suffering from the existing tidal and thereby unavoidable GW affects
as is.
The mainstream argument(s) against my icy proto-moon argument, as to
what's not quite adding up, soon becomes a real physics piss-off; How
much time did it take for that moon which supposedly emerged from within
Earth, to have reached the orbital altitude of 96,100 km, then having
migrated from 96,100 km out to where it's currently operating at 384,400
km? (thus far, none of those spendy computer simulations seem clean
enough)
If within the regular laws of physics and by way of scientific matter of
fact, suggesting that we do seem to have at our disposal 2e20 joules of
potential mascon tidal energy via the mutual Earth/moon gravity and the
for ever ongoing centripetal force to deal with, as applied energy
that's coming or ongoing per each and every second, as such that's
actually imposing a rather great potential of interactive planet<-->moon
energy that's obviously existing and ongoing, or simply as coming or
going as to/from somewhere or otherwise having to coexist as real
energy.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
AJ Gravity Equations Formulas Calculator
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/newtons_law_gravity_equation_force.php
Just for our calculating the Earth/moon static or passive worth of
gravitational force:
object 1 mass (m1) = 5.9736e24 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.349e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 384.4e6 meters
grams of gravitational force(F) = 2.021492e22 g
The kg of gravitational force = 2.021492e19 kg
Here's some more of this weird physics math that doesn't quite fit the
status quo mold, suggesting as to what it'll create by way of our having
placed 7.35e22 kg at Earth's L1 if we excluded the sun itself, which of
course can't ever be the case.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf
r = 1.5376e9 meters
M = 7.35e22 kg
V = 112e3 m/s (if in relation to Earth's 24 hr rotation)
Centripetal force: Fc = 5.996254e23 N = 6.11448e22 kgf
6.11448e22 kgf * 9.80665 = 5.996e23 joules Earth-->L1
However, since the notion of having our moon relocated at Earth's L1 is
essentially having diverted such a mascon into no longer orbiting us,
there's actually zero centripetal interaction taking place (Earth is
simply rather nicely spinning for no apparent reason at the end of this
mutual and somewhat nullified sol/moon/Earth gravity string), whereas
Sol-->Earth L1 is supposedly the primary gravity influence of what takes
back or rather nullifies all of the moon's gravity, as well as having
eliminated the centripetal force of whatever's equivalent in joules
worth of all that implied energy:
As for the sol<-->moon orbital interaction, as having established a
7.35e22 kg planetoid of orbital Fc = 44.4975e25 joules
object 1 mass (m1) = 1.989e30 kilogram
object 2 mass (m2) = 7.35e22 kilogram
distance between objects (r) = 148060290 meters
gravitational force (F) = 4.5375282969184E+25 kgf
The kgf as energy.s = 4.5375283e25 * 9.80655 = 44.4975e25 joules
Obviously the opposing gravity force/energy relationship that's
involving mother Earth has to be taken into account. I simply haven't
gotten that far.
In other words, with our moon relocated out to Earth L1, we/Earth lose
out on the original 2e20 joules, replaced by the sol/moon combined
gravity and tidal influence that's going to become considerably less
imposing than what we'd had ongoing from having that horrific amount of
nearby orbiting mass of 7.35e22 kg and cruising at 1.023 km/s. However,
we/Earth get to deal with our fair share portion of the 44.4975e25
joules while that moon becomes our local planetoid that's cruising
within Earth's L1, as our binary partner on behalf of offering that much
needed shade.
Since we're talking about the existing Fc as a centripetal force per
second, therefore the conversion over to joules is also of one that's
based upon a second by second basis.
1 joule = 1 W.s (watt second)
3600 j = 1 W.h (watt hour)
1 watt hour of applied energy is therefore worth: 3600 joules
1 joule/sec as applied for an hour thereby also = 3600 joules
Each kgf (kg of applied force/m/s) = 9.80665 joules
There's roughly 2.0394e19 kgf of Fc (centripetal force) that's
continually second by second as ongoing opposing force between Earth and
our unusually massive and nearby orbiting mascon/moon.
The second by second amount of centripetal force becomes:
2.0215e19 * 9.80665 = 19.824e19 joules
Per hour, that amount of second by second applied energy becomes worth:
2e20 j * 3.6e3 = 7.2e23 W.h (watts per hour), or 7.2e20 kw
At 7.2e20 / 5.112e14 m2 = 1.408e6 kw/m2
Obviously we're not getting ourselves mascon/moon roasted or otherwist
tramatised to death by way of that horrific amount of applied energy,
though a small portion of that mutual (inside and out) tidal induced
energy is unavoidably becoming thermal energy via friction (inside and
out). In addition to the Fc of 7.2e20 KW.h, there's also a touch of the
moon's IR/FIR as terrestrial influx, although because we're continually
being science data starved, as without having moon/L1 data, is why I've
not yet accounted for the reflected and secondary worth of such IR/FIR
energy that's received by Earth.
The slight portion of the mascon gravity that's offset by centripetal
force is what I'm suggesting is capable of global warming us inside and
out, as listing below:
0.1% = 1.408 kw/m2
0.01% = 140.8 w/m2
0.001% = 14.1 w/m2
0.0001% = 1.4 w/m2
However, since I'm on such a Usenet taboo or banishment status of a
need-to-know basis, and since I clearly do not already know all there is
to know, is why some of my math could be unintentionally skewed or even
dead wrong. Therefore, if your wizardly expertise should know any
better, perhaps you could simply share by telling us how much or how
little of that total amount of nearby mascon gravity and centripetal
force of applied tidal energy is actually keeping us a little extra warm
and toasty. My swag is leaning towards the 0.001% of the 7.2e20 KW.h,
as being worth 14 w/m2. Of course that's applied inside and out,
including a tidal forced atmosphere and otherwise all the way down to
the very core of Earth, and thereby affecting most everything in between
that's in any way fluid or capable of getting moved along by such
forces.
Therefore, take away our moon and subsequently a major portion of our
surface environment becomes rather extra snowy and icy cold to the
touch, not to mention rather albedo reflective to boot, perhaps even ice
age cold enough as to reestablish a few of those badly receding glaciers
and otherwise expand those polar caps. At least that's what the regular
laws of physics and of replicated science has been suggesting. That's
not my excluding or disqualifying the human GW factor of our global
dimming via soot and by having added those nasty elements (including
h2o) into our frail environment that's obviously anything but within
energy balance, that are directly and/or indirectly polluting our oceans
and atmosphere, like none other or even by what the entire collective of
known species other than human can accomplish (are we humans good at
raping and sucking the very life out of mother Earth, or what).
However, as bad off as that sounds, I simply do not place more than 25%
responsibility onto ourselves, and perhaps that's even worth as little
as 10% of the ongoing global warming demise that's plaguing us until we
manage to relocate that pesky moon of our's.
Too bad there's not one American supercomputer that's worthy of running
any of this analogy, at least not without blowing out their mainstream
status quo CPUs. Apparently only of what's Old Testament faith based,
or as hocus-pocus and/or cloak and dagger pro-NASA/Apollo analogies can
be run as fully 3D interactive computer simulations. As God forbid, you
certainly wouldn't want to rock thy good ship LOLLIPOP with the new and
improved truth, now would we.
Unfortunately, our ongoing demise of our highly protective
magnetosphere, at the rate of -0.05%/year, may eventually overtake the
GW factor, as being the more human DNA and of other forms of life's
ultimate lethal demise of these two ongoing gauntlets, which added
together are going to represent more trauma than most such forms of life
as we know of can manage to evolve our way through, or otherwise survive
via applied technology.
Perhaps if the status quo gets its usual brown-nosed Skull and Bones
worth of big-energy buttology certified way, whereas life on Venus
(though naked humanly hot) isn't looking quite as bad off as we've been
faith-based mainstream informed. Either we take Venus or perhaps China
can accommodate a few million wealthy souls within their 1e9 m3
LSE-CM/ISS, or sterage class accommodations for the rest of us village
idiots as their minions living deep within our moon as Earth recovers
from WW-III and all else that's going to hell.
TheEnigmaMachine
We could fry your azz on Venus too but the grease splatters from all the fat
would make it far too messy.
We might be able to run Venus' axis up through your butt Oliver Cromwell
style. We could then use Venus as a rotisserie. A little barbecue sauce,
some big chunks of onions and peppers...even Brad Guth might be edible?
Don't eat the brains though. You'll get kuru.
As for Guthian brain fat, at absolute zero, it resembles bacon grease. To
dispose of, place in permanent orbit in the Keiper belt. Space junk is best
kept at arm's length.
Brad Guth
TheEnigmaMachine,
So, you obviously have to admit that you and others of your kind do not
believe in the regular laws of physics, nor in whatever's of replicated
science, much less in utilizing applied technology no matters what.
That's interesting that there's still the sorts of intellectually
perverted folks like yourself believing the Earth is actually flat, and
that everything still revolves around your flat Earth plus each of those
stinking Old Testament spewing butts. It's as though you folks are
equal if not better than God.
Venus simply offers unlimited loads of perfectly constructive (meaning
positive) physics and thus quite doable energy alternatives for
sustaining intelligent life as we know it (meaning ETs or us and
possibly even Venusian locals), that which is entirely supported by
those pesky regular laws of physics and by whatever the best available
replicated science has to say, right along with those honest historical
truth(s) that are available to behold even if you were blind. I merely
tend to agree with the fine research and expertise of so many others
that you folks obviously despise with all of your collective black
hearts.
With all of that spare and 100% renewable energy available while doing
Venus, seems a touch weird that you folks can't manage to keep your beer
cold, much less your dumbfounded "azz" from getting summarily fried.
That problem of yours must be because of all those incest mutated DNA
codes that's are at fault.
Would you or others in your all-knowing realm of promoting NASA's
infomercials and subsequent hypology like to openly talk about or
otherwise constructively share an honest thought or two, such as by way
of contributing to my honestly subjective observationology of Venus, or
perhaps on behalf of reviewing the LSE-CM/ISS that's likely going to be
accomplished by China, or how about the daunting task of our
not-so-simply relocating that GW pesky moon of our's out to Earth's L1,
for accomplishing a little shade and much less gravity/tidal induced
trauma? (or is any of that asking too much of your Skull and Bones
incest mutated naysay mindset?)
TheEnigmaMachine
Beethoven said "I admit them".
You see, Beethoven was smarter than both Einstein and the Gurhian
propagandists. He knew rules were meant to be broken.
Red shift is crap. Better dead than red? It's your fate! Sci-wierdos simply
don't understand how light changes as it travels distance. The sci-guys have
made up a fact and now believe their own crap. They said that the sun
revolves around the earth too. And yes, the Earth is flat...in spots...where
ever your big butt has been planted in some kind of space-time continuum.
The universe is not expanding. It's collapsing in on itself. They are
holding the telescopes backwards.
For the universe to expand and accelerate, there must be additional mass out
beyond the edge of the known universe. Our universe will simply be absorbed
into other nearby universes like a lava lamp absorbs big globs of goo. There
are not only billions of galaxies. There are billions of universes...some
ungoing their own big bangs and exchanging matter with other universes. If
you don't believe it, read the Bible. It's in there, right after the
crossword puzzle and the recipe for garlic shrimp.
Gamma ray bursts occur when objects transfer between dimensions. It's no
strings attached string theory.
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4e31643ccb1b9630637...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Brad Guth
> Who forbids parallel fifths?
>
> Beethoven said "I admit them".
>
> You see, Beethoven was smarter than both Einstein and the Gurhian
> propagandists. He knew rules were meant to be broken.
Most folks should be smarter than myself. But I too have broken more
than my fair share of rules, especially of those silly rules inside of
that mainstream status quo box that contains mostly brown nosed minions
that seem more faith-based Old Testament worthy than not.
> Red shift is crap. Better dead than red? It's your fate! Sci-wierdos simply
> don't understand how light changes as it travels distance. The sci-guys have
> made up a fact and now believe their own crap. They said that the sun
> revolves around the earth too. And yes, the Earth is flat...in spots...where
> ever your big butt has been planted in some kind of space-time continuum.
>
> The universe is not expanding. It's collapsing in on itself. They are
> holding the telescopes backwards.
>
> For the universe to expand and accelerate, there must be additional mass out
> beyond the edge of the known universe. Our universe will simply be absorbed
> into other nearby universes like a lava lamp absorbs big globs of goo. There
> are not only billions of galaxies. There are billions of universes...some
> ungoing their own big bangs and exchanging matter with other universes. If
> you don't believe it, read the Bible. It's in there, right after the
> crossword puzzle and the recipe for garlic shrimp.
>
> Gamma ray bursts occur when objects transfer between dimensions. It's no
> strings attached string theory.
Now you're thinking sufficiently weird and way outside the mainstream
status quo box. I actually think there's some truth to behold that's
somewhere within all of that encrypted message.
A couple of basic questions:
Is our universe merely God's flatulence?
Besides zero K and absolute vacuum, what's outside of our universe?
captain.
anything that mr. guth ever wrote.
"TheEnigmaMachine" <YouCanCa...@WoHochtDieBus.de> wrote in message
news:DBOAh.38$FJ7...@newsfe10.lga...
TheEnigmaMachine
"captain." <spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
news:QRxBh.86024$Fd.84696@edtnps90...
> heh heh, that's some good material... and most of it makes more sense than
> anything that mr. guth ever wrote.
>
Fortunately for us, Brad the Morlock Guth only comes out at leave when they
open the doors to the cave.
As for red shift, it's never been proven. The universe is expanding and
accelerating, yeah right! It can't accelerate unless it's either being
attracted to or repelled by some other force. OK, so where's the other
force?
The expanding, accelerating universe schtick is all built on one bogus red
shift fairy tale. Brad should go find out about light after the freshness
date stamped on the package has expired. My guess is we'll discover what the
real reason for red shift is and maybe also why there's green fuzzy stuff on
everything in xolodilnik Brada.
Brad Guth
It seems the usual disinformation gauntlet that's continually hauled
about, such as onboard our good ship LOLLIPOP, has butt-loads more of
their infomercial crapolla as damage-control flak to share.
>Starlord:
>They have maped the moon and only find the light weigth
>metal ores.
Is that why the moon is still so salty and otherwise loaded with complex
mascon issues?
Excuse please; Whom the heck is "they", and why should we believe such
remote science as provided by such faith-based and/or politically agenda
formulated individuals, that clearly owe their brown nosed loyalty to
whomever is in charge of their private parts?
Terrestrial identified moon rocks do not seem of low denisity, or didn't
you folks know that?
>Starlord:
>There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
>universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
>Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
>brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
>heavens.
I simply believe that other life similar or entirely different from
whatever we know of, should by all the known laws of physics and of
other biological rights of pure random happenstance or via intelligent
design exist/coexist elsewhere within this vast universe (possibly even
within our solar system), and of whatever's intelligent enough to have
made space travel safely doable should also be wise enough for giving
our badly polluted Earth a wide buffer DMZ because of our inbread
arrogance, greed and bigotry that has time and again demonstrated as
having practically if not absolutely no remorse whatsoever.
Even though there could have been a far better science transponder
alternative than those terribly small passive areas of retroreflectors,
or that of whatever impact deployed reflective material, whereas until
better interactive range finding science is made available to the
surface of our moon, I'd have to accept the best available science of
others, as having established that our moon is currently leaving town at
the rate of 38 mm/yr.
For our icy proto-moon to have gotten safely away from such a glancing
sucker punch of a nasty bounce off Earth to begin with, whereas it seems
this seasonal tilt making and arctic ocean basin forming encounter
required that our original icy proto-moon had to lose or rather transfer
a good deal of its original mass in the initial impact process, and then
continually having to lose other mass (such as whatever remaining ice),
and ever since losing a sufficient tonnage/yr of sodium in order to be
leaving us at the supposed recession rate of 38 mm/year.
If the mass of our moon had remained essentially unchanged, it's orbit
would have long since stabilized or possibly even in spite of secondary
tidal forces surcome to the mutual gravity of attraction, whereas
instead of losing our moon by 38 mm/yr, we'd be joining back up at some
future date.
Here's some more of my weird math:
As it is continually losing mostly the element of sodium, but also a few
other elements that are getting boiled out and excavated away by the
solar wind, I do believe the 38 mm/yr recession value if taken as per
applied kgf/yr = 90.246e12, or of that force in applied energy of 885e12
joules/yr.
Once again, it's too bad that we're not quite smart enough for having
established an efficient station-keeping moon L1 science platform as of
the mid 60s, whereas we'd certainly have learned a great deal more about
our unusually massive and nearby moon, and I do believe loads more about
Earth science, that is if we only had a brain instead of a mutually
perpetrated cold-war mindset.
Brad Guth
> Red shift is crap. Better dead than red? It's your fate! Sci-wierdos simply
> don't understand how light changes as it travels distance. The sci-guys have
> made up a fact and now believe their own crap. They said that the sun
> revolves around the earth too. And yes, the Earth is flat...in spots...where
> ever your big butt has been planted in some kind of space-time continuum.
>
> The universe is not expanding. It's collapsing in on itself. They are
> holding the telescopes backwards.
Then perhaps we should be talking BLUE SHIFT?
I'd have to agree that our galaxy is once again in the process of
pulling us inward. At least that's what the 225 million year galactic
cycle seems to be indicating via the proper motions of such stars, with
a few local stars accomplishing weird things a whole lot more often.
TheEnigmaMachine
> "TheEnigmaMachine" <YouCanCa...@WoHochtDieBus.de> wrote in message
> news:DBOAh.38$FJ7...@newsfe10.lga
>
>> Red shift is crap. Better dead than red? It's your fate! Sci-wierdos
>> simply
>> don't understand how light changes as it travels distance. The sci-guys
>> have
>> made up a fact and now believe their own crap. They said that the sun
>> revolves around the earth too. And yes, the Earth is flat...in
>> spots...where
>> ever your big butt has been planted in some kind of space-time continuum.
>>
>> The universe is not expanding. It's collapsing in on itself. They are
>> holding the telescopes backwards.
>
> Then perhaps we should be talking BLUE SHIFT?
>
> I'd have to agree that our galaxy is once again in the process of
> pulling us inward.
I'm starting to feel like we are in a giant vise.
I'm startin' to feel a little claustrophobic.
Grown men wearing red suits makes me feel uncomfortable.
>At least that's what the 225 million year galactic
> cycle seems to be indicating via the proper motions of such stars, with
> a few local stars accomplishing weird things a whole lot more often.
> -
It's good for stars to have goals.
Britney just had her head shaved. What's your goal?
Brad Guth
> It's good for stars to have goals.
> Britney just had her head shaved. What's your goal?
I had goals many times before, and even fulfilled some of those. I have
a few other goals that are still perfectly viable, and perhaps there's
one or two good ones still waiting to get hatched.
One obvious goal is to be considered a insider/player in the ongoing
game of snookering humanity for all it's worth, and subsequently getting
paid those really big bucks for doing such, or paid even bigger bucks
for keeping all of my lids on thight. Since that's not likely going to
happen without involving WW-III and/or that of my joining forces with
their Skull and Bones, I'd settle for my two cents worth, plus whatever
15 minutes of fame.
I would like one or more of those spendy GOOGLE/NOVA 3D animated
eye-candy and mind-blowing productions with my name on it, or perhaps
even a brief Carl Sagan like series of fancy infomercial productions as
to depicting what I and a few others perceive as affordably doable. As
representing the ultimate messenger from hell, I'd even settle for
having to sit in the very back of their bus.
-
Brad Guth
As you'll see once again, any debate regarding our moon simply isn't
possible without taking on butt-loads of Usenet's mainstream status quo
as naysayism flak.
Everything related to this topic has to remain 100% in support of the
Old Testament, as well as for supporting each and every last word of the
NASA/Apollo koran as though it was the one and only holy grail word of
God. Therefore, the regular laws of physics simply do not apply, and
most other than what's NASA/Apollo of replicated science simply isn't
worth squat without receiving their 100% cloak and dagger approval
rating.
In spite of what lord NASA has to say; There's currently 2e20 joules of
centripetal energy related to our orbiting mascon of a moon. That's
roughly 7.2e20 KWhr that's ongoing for each and every hour. As the moon
loses its sodium plus a few other raw elements of mass is one of the
good reasons that it's continually moving away from us. Another reason
is the solar wind that's continually blowing it more often away from us
than having been directing it towards us, and then we have tidal
gravitational factors to blame for most of the other reasons as to
what's keeping that absolutely extremely massive and relatively nearby
moon away from Earth.
By ratio of planet:moon, there's absolutely none other more substantial
than ours, especially considering its relatively nearby orbit.
There's also a great deal of voltage and amperage worth of raw
electrical energy that's existing between Earth and our moon (best
detected and/or extracted from the moon's L1 because, gravity is a form
of raw energy). I suspect there's a few amps worth of several
teravolts, that's more than likely an attracting force that's somewhat
related to those extremely long photons of gravity, and otherwise
related to the sun's and that of Earth's magnetospheres.
Solar wind itself is much like the mother of what's charging up an
electrostatic battery, like what's existing within our Van Allen belts
is most likely much more intensive as related to what's having been
unavoidably collected and held onto by our nearly naked moon.
On it's own, I do not believe our moon could ever reach Earth's L1,
though I'm not at all sure that it could even demise itself into heading
back towards Earth unless impacted with sufficient force from the back
side, as a nearly dead on hit of something of an icy Sedna could manage
to cause sufficient orbital trauma, especially effective if the impact
event penetrated the lunar crust and thereby added mass to the moon at
the same time.
The rocky or possibly little iron core of Sedna might be worth 50% of
it's total and otherwise extensively icy mass. The Sedna core that
might stick with our moon could thereby amount to 3e21 kg (roughly 4% of
the moon), and that amount should more than help revert the ongoing
recession. Depending upon the angle of Sedna impacting our moon, and a
tonne of complex math, one might get it nailed down to the actual day of
that salty moon impacting Earth, although most all forms of life on
Earth would have been terminated by the absolutely horrific tidal
ripping forces (inside and out) long before that big old nasty sucker
ever touched our atmosphere or much less the actual surface of Earth.
-
Brad Guth
------------------
If there's anything more taboo/nondisclosure rated than our moon,
Venus or Sirius, it has got to be those pesky NEOs.
-start pun-
How To Fight An Asteroid - The Bush Plan / by; kT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/45cb4f3fcd89afee/326353d44d43f3d1?hl=en#326353d44d43f3d1
The Bush plan:
"Tell the goddamned thing to change it's way, or else. All options are
on the table. AFTER it changes it's way, we can talk. This is cosmic
blackmail, and the people of the United States and freedom-loving people
everywhere will not tolerate it. I ask the rest of the peace-loving
nations of the world to join me in seeking to remove this against this
threat to our democratic way of life!"
Asteroid keeps coming. A UN investigation shows that it has no chance of
hitting Earth. 77 nations propose nudging the asteroid into an even
wider orbit.
"If the Rest Of the World isn't going to take care of this, the United
States in the interest of peace and freedom will have to do it on it's
own!"
UN says the asteroid is going to miss by an even wider margin than
previously calculated. More nations suggest that the US plan could
result in disaster, and that the asteroid is not going to hit Earth.
Grade-school kids in India with 32 cent calculators are figuring out the
orbit as part of an arithmetic class, put it somewhere more kilometers
past Earth than their calculators have digits. Rock-throwing
Palestinians calculate that orbit to be somewhere on the other side of
the Moon.
"Sanctions will not work against a brutal and cruel asteroid which does
not care about consequences to itself. I asd the UN to join with me in
forming a Coalition of the Bribed and then Willing to deal with this
menace in the only language it understands."
Bush and 14 other nations work together to confront the asteroid. Three
of them send troops with bicycle pumps to keep the tires of HumVees
inflated, not being aware of how they work. Six more send dates, figs
and cigarettes for the rest of the folks, and the five remaining send
along drivers trained to drive on the right side of the road to assist
in support.
"I have directed the Armed Forces of the Unites States, with the
assistance of NASA, to confront this evil threat in the only way it will
understand. Bring it on!"
So, Bush blows it into a bazillion pieces, many of which are now on
their way to strike Earth. Some will miss for now, preferring to make it
on another pass. As predicted by Saudi Arabian camel jockeys who watch
the stars at night.
"I've had to make the tough decisions. They have no plan of their own.
It's easy to criticize." Now that it's a mess, Bush attacks his critics,
and demands more and more weapons to vaporize every little bit of the
asteroid.
Shortly afterward, the Earth passes through a cloud of very radioactive
debris which makes the damage to WTC look like a pea-shooter attack on
an armored car. The atmosphere is polluted, cities wiped out, fires rage
around the world, oxygen is being depleted, and it's getting cold.
"I told you so!" Bush makes a speech from his bunker, which is supplied
with fresh air and food for those essential for the functioning of the
American government, including Laura and Barney. It is stocked with
100,000 cases of cheap booze for the kids. After all, in a couple of
years search parties can go get more. "I told you that was a vicious
asteroid with only one thing in mind - the destruction of our way of
life!"
With their dying breaths, Conservative applaud.
-end pun-
Seriously folks, I simply love it. The NASA/NEO "Bush Plan" that so
absolutely fits into his born again faith-based Skull and Bones puppet
mindset. Between his butt-cheek brains and the tight butt-crack of
such quail hunting instincts of his trigger happy Dick Cheney. Just
like Iraq, how the hell could we possibly lose?
Please, whatever you do, don't tell anyone (especially not our resident
LLPOF warlord Bush) about the alternative of safely terminating such
NEOs once and for all, by way of simply diverting those nasty suckers
into encountering our good for nothing but global warming moon.
Brad Guth
If there's anything more taboo/nondisclosure rated than our moon,
captain.
so you're saying that acceptance is what you want even if it means accepting
a relatively low position in the social hierarchy of your peers? that should
be easy to do. you just need to kiss a little ass here and there.
Brad Guth
> so you're saying that acceptance is what you want even if it means accepting
> a relatively low position in the social hierarchy of your peers? that should
> be easy to do. you just need to kiss a little ass here and there.
That is correct, plus having that very brown-nose is what sort of goes
along with that ride.
However, I'm not exactly sure they could pay me enough to actually sit
passively that far back in their infomercial spewing bus, of accepting
such conditional laws of physics and of evidence excluding as though on
steroids.
Secondly, I'm not actually anti faith based, just anti LLPOF faith
based, which unfortunately is what sort of eliminates a good number of
those mainstream religious cults right off the bat. So, they can even
toss in some religious flak if it'll help sell their GOOGLE/NOVA
infomercial to a wider base of humanity. After all, whatever visiting
ETs or Venusians could be those nice Cathars, or worse yet, Muslims.
Brad Guth
news:1165350732.8...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Terrestrial and/or of whatever's of terrestrial satellite communications
> > with whatever's utilizing the moon's L1 isn't the least bit of a problem
> > for existing technology, especially if using FM/quantum binary packets
> > via laser beams.
> >
> > Might I further ask; How many terabytes per second or rather per ms
> > would you like to transfer?
>
> Please forgive this very ignorant follow-up question, but do such laser
> beams work over such vast distances and through atmospheric conditions
> or are you taking about satellite to station communications?
Sorry that I'd missed this one for so long.
Those laser cannons of a proper spectrum (say 400~450 nm) should
actually do just fine and dandy at getting vast amounts of such data
packets through those thick Venusian clouds, as transmitted from Earth
or best as created from a satellite parked within Venus L2.
I have some rough math that's probably not correct, but it'll more than
prove my point.
Brad Guth
Where's Venus as of Apollo missions A11, A14 and A16?
Where's that official NASA/Apollo interactive 3D simulator, or of any
other solar system simulator that which supposedly proves Venus was
never within a given FOV as from the moon, and therefore was supposedly
nowhere in sight as of missions A11, A14 and A16?
From the moon, Venus would actually for its FOV given size should have
appeared and thereby recorded upon such unfiltered film as looking
somewhat brighter and looking a touch more violet than Earth.
A few examples (of which there are many others available) of terrestrial
obtained images that so happen to include our moon, which due to our
polluted atmosphere are not even half as vibrant as if such had been
obtained as unfiltered and thereby chuck full of near-UV plus UV-a
spectrum energy as if obtained from space, or best as easily viewed from
the physically dark surface of our moon, whereas the dynamic range of
Kodak film was simply far more than sufficient, especially considering
how physically dark and nasty our moon actually should have been, and
even more so of having depicted such dark looking lunar terrain if those
cameras had been utilizing a polarised optical element (of which they
did).
Images of the occultation of Venus by the Moon on July 17 2001 processed
for neutral sky color
moon + Jupiter + other moon venus occultation / conjunctions
http://static.flickr.com/34/71342628_843c2e91e3.jpg
http://www.occultations.net/moon-jupiter.jpg
http://hometown.aol.com/astropjm/images/solar4-mars.jpg
http://hometown.aol.com/astropjm/images/sol1.jpg
http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~kawas/jpg/S182vx3.jpg
http://dvaa.org/Photos/TomBash/VenusOcc.html
http://www.astro-photography.com/planetary_conjunction.htm
Jupiter - Moon occultation, as taken by Becky Coretti with Bill
Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a Tom O Compact Platform, as per
using a rather pathetic ToUCam along with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
Within the same FOV and obviously exposed for the same amount of time,
whereas Jupiter is obviously more than bright enough to have been
recorded by a Kodak moment, especially of having an unfiltered look-see
from the surface of our physically dark moon.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg
Imagine how much brighter Venus would have recorded. Even Mars and
Saturn should have recorded within most any given Kodak moment as long
as such were within any number of acceptable FOVs while taking all of
those thousands of pictures. Of course those pesky other items above
the horizon would have represented small bits of such items within view
of the typical lens in use, but still will within the film and lens
resolution to have been easily and unavoidably recorded.
As it stands, team KECK as well as anyone involved with the grand
ruse/sting of our mutually perpetrated cold-war, are each forbidden as
to obtaining such occultation images, as such images would only go to
further prove how often we've been lied to by those of us having "the
right stuff" (after all, it's what our government and of their religious
puppeteers do best).
Brad Guth
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 save thy infomercial spewing butts.
Keeping such hot topics off their publicly accessed index page is also
another rather pathetic ruse, wouldn't you say.
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 that we can all use
about our silly moon, which for good damn 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
brad...@gmail.com
Are we going to nuke the likes of China for their attempting to take
command of our moon's L1?
Are we going to ABL anything in sight, that's within its 100 MW laser
cannon's IR range?
-
Brad Guth
The First Solutrean
<brad...@gmail.com> "Brainal Leakage" wrote in message
news:1174201387....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> If our moon remains as officially taboo/nondisclosure, then what?
>
See if there's anything good on TV?
> Are we going to nuke the likes of China for their attempting to take
> command of our moon's L1?
>
Depends on the answer to the first question. If American Idol isn't on,
might as well nuke China cuz there's nothing else to do. We know the recipe
for general tsao's chicken so they have out-lived their usefullness. There
is no longer any need to keep them around.
> Are we going to ABL anything in sight, that's within its 100 MW laser
> cannon's IR range?
> -
> Brad Guth
>
Questions #1 and #2 not withstanding, zapping things with high powered
lasers is always good clean fun.
brad...@gmail.com
<TheFirstAmeri...@iwuzherefirst.org> wrote:
> <bradg...@gmail.com> "Brainal Leakage" wrote in message
Our very own salty moon and of its L1 holy grail is still taboo/
nondisclosure, and of or mostly Jewish mainstream folks really don't
give a tinkers damn as to how much GW that massive and neaby sucker
has been causing us. You folks also make fun of the ongoing
collateral damage and carnage of the innocent, just like the Third
Reich and of their Jewish minions knowingly accomplished on behalf of
their very own resident LLPOF warlord(Hitler).
Our warm and fuzzy NASA has been nothing but multiple train wrecks
from their perpetrated cold-war get go. Telling us lies upon lies is
in fact what they do best, in infomercial format that's made to look
as though it's based upon actual physics and good science.
Their primary Old Testament train of "up yours" has been off the
tracks and yet somehow still taking us to hell ever since we hired
those smart Jewish Third Reich rocket scientists that typically claim
to know more than God, and that was and still is foremost on behalf of
their knowing more of how to screw humanity and of how to pillage and
otherwise rape and trash our frail environment for all it's worth, and
then some.
By their not having accomplished the LSE-CM/ISS (Clarke Station on
tethers), or by otherwise not having gone to visit with those nearby
Venusians or of their visiting ETs, is proof positive that we're all
being summarily screwed by way of those having "the right stuff".
-
Brad Guth
The First Solutrean
<brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174236101.6...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"
brad...@gmail.com
How totally pathetic, and otherwise par for the course. No wonder
this Usenet sucks and blows on behalf of polishing all that's NASA/
Apollo.
-
Brad Guth
The First Solutrean
<brad...@gmail.com> "Goofy Guth" wrote in message
news:1174255725.0...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Apollo missions are long over. In fact, many people say they never happened.
It was all faked...like Cheney's Iraq evidence.
If you would like to learn more about space, read my posts.
brad...@gmail.com
<TheFirstAmeri...@iwuzherefirst.org> wrote:
> Apollo missions are long over. In fact, many people say they never happened.
> It was all faked...like Cheney's Iraq evidence.
We've all been summarily snookered at one time or another. How about
yourself?
> If you would like to learn more about space, read my posts
Like reading through your "All work and no play makes Jack a dull
boy" ?
Talk to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's not of Earth.
Tell us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of how we
subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt.
Our Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon actually doesn't hold much of a candle to
the fire that's burning up all of those hard earned dollars on behalf
of Mars.
Whatever life on Mars sucks, real bad, and/or is damn spendy to boot.
If Mars was ever into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such
without benefit of having all that much salt, as well as having gone
without a magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly
Ceres, or even Sedna with it's redish ice offers more life worthy butt
kicking potential than Mars.
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take a thousand years, and we're either toast and/or we're
soon enough becoming Mars like.
We're deep into achieving our point of no return, of the ongoing GW
thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most all of that
nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a good enough
moon for keeping that planetology core and of a surface of interactive
tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking, as is very much the
case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
> As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet
before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.
At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a swamp and/or of some other geothermally
forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise the necessary
quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as though it had
been nearly entirely missed upon getting its fair share of salt to
begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been strip-mined or
somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of having at least 1.5e17 kg
of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and percentage or PPM worth of
whatever's Martian rock salt been established from those robotic
samples taken and processed thus far?
Is salt too complicated of an element as to detect, much less
quantify?
Are there per chance any signs of Martian diatoms to behold?
Other than going by way of various observational derived speculations,
as to our having interpreted upon what sort of looks as though it's of
a Mars salt like substance, it seems as though our very own reactive
moon with its argon and sodium atmosphere has offered more solids of
salt to behold than Mars. What gives?
As I've said before, there's little argument from myself that Mars
once upon a geothermally forced time had surface water, and that it
still does have a wee bit of local or deposited salt, though as of
thus far it's simply not indicating as having near enough (Na) volume
or bulk as to hardly matter, especially if such salt(s) had been once
upon a time made wet enough as for sustaining other significant life
(meaning intelligent, as to being of something more worthy than mere
microbes and/or diatom like spores).
If Mars once offered as little as 1% the surface volumes of water as
Earth, whereas such there should have been those remainders of its
global salt (say at least 1% of our 1.5e19 kg = 1.5e17 kg), and
thereby even that scant 1% worth of our terrestrial salt is what
actually represents quite a great deal of salt to have kept hidden on
Mars.
What I'm otherwise driving at, is simply pondering the research based
notions, that Mars is much older than Earth, and that Earth is much
older than Venus, and that our somewhat recent moon (as having arrived
since the last ice age) that's so much bigger and nearby than most
seems a whole lot more salty than Mars, almost as though this solar
system was assembled over a great period of time, as we've been
dragged along by the likes of the Sirius star/solar system, and of
likely having received a few items from its vast Oort cloud of icy
moons and planet sized debris.
At least our somewhat salty moon, as being so massive and nearby, is
what's more than making up for the ongoing loss of Earth's core energy
that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding 78 mw/m2, whereas
our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has been so much so
helping that it has become by far our primary GW consideration like
none other. Obviously adding our global dimming soot into the ongoing
GW demise of our frail environment that's also losing its portective
magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year isn't exactly
helping, at least not any more so than our artificial methods of
having been evaporating water that's only adding to our atmospheric
cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently ranges
anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes, depending
entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics driven
science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
-
Brad Guth
nons...@unsettled.com
snip <yet more nonsense>
Hey Brad! How's come you've missed out on the other
great coverup conspiracy of the 20th and 21st
centuries? I'd have thought you'd have joined the
"expanding earth" people long ago!
brad...@gmail.com
wrote:> HeyBrad! How's come you've missed out on the other
> great coverup conspiracy of the 20th and 21st
> centuries? I'd have thought you'd have joined the
> "expanding earth" people long ago!
>
> http://www.expanding-earth.org/
I've previously stipulated that Earth is geothermally shrinking,
exactly as it should, upon average by quite a bit of internal
planetology cooling, as well as having lost high ground into our
otherwise GW rising oceans.
Sorry to say, Earth is not expanding.
-
Brad Guth
brad...@gmail.com
we don't know about our moon, about Venus, or about the Sirius star/
solar system.
Here's another slightly corrected/polished reply, as intended for
those that see no problems whatsoever with their excessively spending
most all of our hard earned loot on their off-world hobby, that which
seems to include their continued snookering of all the rest of us
village idiots.
(it's no wonder these silly Usenet clowns see nothing the least bit
wrong with our resident warlord's actions, as well as accepting upon
whatever our government has done in the past or plans upon doing in
the near future is perfectly OK, as long as they get to do their
thing)
How about instead of our wasting such supposed talents, draining our
best resources and having mostly lost precious time, why not instead
they should be talking to us about our somewhat salty old moon that's
not of Earth, telling us when that big old icy sucker arrived and of
how we subsequently obtained our seasonal tilt. If they're so gosh
darn smart, as such they can start off by telling us of whatever it's
going to take for relocating our moon, such as out to Earth's L1, so
that a significant and/or perhaps do-everything lid can once and for
all be placed upon our GW fiasco, that's going to need all the help it
can get.
Unfortunately, our "Taboo/Nondisclosure Moon" actually doesn't hold
much of a candle to the fire that's continually burning up all of
those hard earned billions upon billions of dollars, as for getting
badly spent on behalf of Mars, or of worse yet upon whatever it's
taking for going far beyond.
In spite of all that blown loot and lost time on behalf of whatever
life might have once upon a time existed on Mars, that at best sucks
real bad, and/or is of life that's going to remain as damn spendy to
boot, if not a touch lethal to our environment. If Mars life was ever
into kicking any serious butt, it's having done such without benefit
of having all that much salt, as well as having gone without a
magnetosphere or a worthy moon to boot. Titan and possibly Ceres, or
even Sedna with it's reddish ice offers more life worthy butt kicking
potential than Mars, and we obviously can't humanly go to/from either
of those places, much less return with anything worthy of humanity or
that of salvaging our badly failing environment.
An Earth w/o magnetosphere, w/o moon is simply a much larger Mars.
Give or take another iffy thousand years, and we're either toast and/
or we're soon enough on the road to becoming Mars like.
We're rather deep into achieving our point of no return, of the
ongoing GW thawing process of losing our surface ice caps, while most
all of that nifty Mars sequestered ice isn't going anywhere without a
good enough moon for keeping that planetology core and whatever
surface of interactive tidal forced environment(s) alive and kicking,
as is very much the case for mother Earth.
Pat Flannery:
"Subject: Very wet Mars?"
> As in thirty-plus feet deep water over its entire surface if melted?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/15marsice/
Mars polar aquafur/aquifer ice is certainly worth our knowing about,
as it represents the grim remainder of what obviously used to be a
geothermally active and only somewhat atmospheric protected planet,
that is before having lost it's essential magnetosphere.
Even if we're talking 1% Earth wet, Mars is missing most of its salt.
All the water upon Earth and within it's wet atmosphere might
represent as much as 9,000'(2.743 km) as covering a smooth orb. Thus
30+'(9.15 m) in depth of covering such a wussy little orb as Mars is
hardly worth a good spit.
At that near vacuum, what would the rate of evaporation be?
After the great thaw, would there be any salty remainders?
Perhaps Mars was a mostly a cool swamp and/or of some other
geothermally forced muck like fresh water planet, whereas otherwise
the necessary quantity of Mars salt simply doesn't seem to coexist, as
though it had been nearly if not entirely missed upon getting its fair
share of salt to begin with, or perhaps as having subsequently been
strip-mined or somehow otherwise having its salt extracted.
Is there yet an unknown atmospheric process of having extracted salt
from such a cold and dry environment? (I don't think so)
If whatever deposited such massive amounts of rock salt and ocean
volumes of salty water upon Earth (roughly 1.5e19 kg of Na) should
have happened at roughly the same time for the benefit of Mars, as
then perhaps our Mars probes should have been operating fairly deep
within the remainders of such Mars salt, of their having at least
1.5e17 kg of whatever Na to deal with.
Have those salty types of minerals and of their percentage or PPM
thermal energy, that's supposedly somewhere in the range of shedding
78 mw/m2, whereas our moon's gravity of tidal forced influence has
been so much so helping that it has become by far our primary GW
consideration like none other. Obviously adding our global dimming
soot into the ongoing GW demise of our frail environment that's also
losing its protective magnetosphere at the daunting rate of -.05%/year
isn't exactly helping, at least not any more so than our artificial
methods of having been evaporating water that's only adding to our
atmospheric cache of having to hold said water vapor, which currently
ranges anywhere from 13e12 tonnes to as much as 150e12 tonnes,
depending entirely upon whichever hocus-pocus or conditional physics
driven science you'd care to take to the bank.
It's as though we don't hardly know of or much less appreciate our
very own Earth, yet having spent countless billions upon billions,
while having essentially invested decades of our very best talents and
resources upon going after whatever's further away than Venus seems
almost sadistic, if not insane.
We can't even honestly accomplish our moon's L1, much less the moon
itself, yet a fuzzy if not hocus-pocus future of spending more than a
trillion per decade seems likely without hardly a dollar going towards
resolving our need of accomplishing a substantial cache of solar and
wind derived renewable energy, much less for extracting from the
energy that's existing between Earth and our moon.
Doing Venus isn't 1% the cost of accomplishing the same task for
Mars. At least you can efficiently go about your business (if need be
all 19 months worth of it) as safely within that composite rigid
airship, transporting yourself safely above the geothermally toasty
surface of Venus, without hardly expending energy or having to ever
set a hot foot on that deck.
-
Brad Guth