On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:44:44 AM UTC-8, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:27:13 PM UTC-8, bob haller wrote:

looks like rabbit has some issues, its warranty may be expired



It's very suspicious, as to how the China moon mission was so
unprepared.


Unprepared? Are you kidding? The fact that the mission actually landed

on the moon and the rover worked for a period of time indicates a level

of expertise (and financial investment) that's quite high. I'm quite

impressed with what they've accomplished.



Look at the moon race in the 60's for a comparison. Both the US and

U.S.S.R. had quite a string of failures of unmanned lunar probes.


Have you uncovered any actual science from their moon mission (other
than revised/doctored images)?


Like you're an expert! :-P

Jeff


I never suggested they didn't have a vastly superior lander (especially to anything we have), which to me proved just how good their MIC of fly-by-rocket stuff has become.

Of course any and all R&D pertaining to that sort of moon lander remains as a taboo/nondisclosure issue, so that our guys don't get to benefit from any of their superior capability.

Do you even know of anyone having access to the raw science of their mission, besides those badly revised 3rd or 4th hand modified images, of which they can't even explain to us how their CCD imagers working at 400+ K as having performed so nicely when none of our stuff can?

Is this why their extremely high temperature rated CCD imagers couldn't function when cooled down to below 200 K?

What is it about real objective science that you obviously place no value upon?

It's exactly as though no other missions ever made it to the surface of our physically dark, paramagnetic and naked moon, and thereby team China had no idea of what to expect.

What sort of outsider expertise does it take in order to comprehend surface temperatures, illumination levels (including planetshine) and those basic radiation readings?

Are we also to believe our moon is inert, monochromatic and not the least bit reactive to UV nor ionized?

Obviously you can't even deductively interpret those crappy media revised images, because dysfunctional 5th graders seem to know far more about using PhotoShop or whatever photo editing image interpreting than yourself. Are you suggesting that your education never got that far?