I have no falts with "NASA assertions", or even the assertions of
others.

How much of those NASA/Apollo missions were "assertions", and how much
was hard science? Are we talking 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90%
"assertions"?

I've never had problems with all the terrific images of our moon
obtained from orbit, not from anything Apollo while in orbit, via Hubble
or even the likes of KECK, as they each managed to depict a mostly
basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as 3%(coal like)
reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only an extremely few maximum
lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions as to the
surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics as recorded by
the unfiltered Kodak eye.

However, once supposedly situated upon the lunar surface, why was there
so much of that basalt lunar terrain that was 55+% reflective?

How is it that selective portions of this already oddly bright
reflective lunar terrain (hardly a basalt rock nor meteorite shard in
sight), that there were so many of those intensive retro-reflective
zones surrounding a given atronaut?

Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as depicted from images obtained from orbit that clearly
indicated as 5% or less reflective index wherever NASA/Apollo pointed
out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of radiated IR
energy coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in near-UV and UV/a energy?

Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Shouldn't the tremendus intensity of such a near-UV and UV/a spectrum of
Sirius have burned into a few of those Kodak moments?

Where was good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?

Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the documentation?

What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and numerous other robotic missions before and after ever
once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining such raw surface
emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should have been rather
easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts of differentials,
especially from such a relatively low (100+km) orbits?

In a little further research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?

So as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling one together for that of establishing space radiation data, we
still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in space, we
don't have a freaking clue as to the surface IR nor TBI differences
between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science upon a purely
zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data as to the final
velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available kinetic energy
release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't have a single
interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the moon (not even
the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we anything from
the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth science
(unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue laser
cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those supposed
retro-reflectors are a physics joke, as damn near a RadioShack
photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the weight,
probably 0.1% the cost, offering a 1° beam of at least a million times
more detectable photons).

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
behalf of seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on
behalf of ISS, I also managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to
folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational booster
shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't
even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even
better physics and science logic and numerous other values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

I'll offer another topic of "TRACE--TRACE-II--VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.

I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.

Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG