Here's something other about the moon, as in "good news" and "bad
news".

Lunar 3He or He3 is just one of many energy contributions that our
moon holds, as there's energy to be derived from the LSE-CM/ISS
tethers and of the deployed tether dipole element that's potentially
reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth. If that's not a few GW worth of
tether dipole energy to being had, there's certainly the physical
tidal recession energy worth of at least 5 terawatts, plus there's
whatever solar PV/sterling energy conversions worth at least another
few MW class contributions.

Then there's the lunar core of thermal nuclear substance(s), and of
whatever other can be strip mined from the surface that's clearly been
determined as more than sufficiently radio active.

In other village idiot words of wisdom; good grief almighty folks,
don't fixate yourself upon one individual item as a go/no-go criteria.
And don't even fixate upon energy, as there's lunar basalt that can be
efficiently and of extremely high purity processed on the spot, as
into various structural fibers for assembling into composites, and of
spheres and/or ellipsoids for obtaining R-1024/m worth of insulation
and of structural cavity displacement fill.

There's lots more if you'd care to discover and hopefully contribute
to moon/lunar probes for a penny on the dollar/euro;

This is what I've recently replied to others that still can't seem to
think outside their NASA moderated box. With further regard to the
available energies of our moon, much less those of Venus, as opposed
to the likes of Mars offering us, at best, squat.

Obviously nothing is free, unless of course you happen work for and/or
along side of NASA/NSA/DoD (Halburton), as that's certainly become a
free ride if there ever was. Though as for Mars, it's been entirely
limited to whatever we an import, as otherwise there's nearly squat
worth of local energy opportunities.

I fully understand the "net" worth considerations for a number of
things.

You seem to be another entirely stuck within that "nondisclosure" box,
unable to even realize upon the enormous energy extractions possible
from just the vertical differentials (4+bar/km) that'll give any
village idiot all the energy you can possibly want. So, why is it
that, even by this fundamental basis of obtaining energy is being so
easily misunderstood, as it's physics-101.

I'll dare you or others to think upon positive solutions, on behalf of
Venus, as I'll just bet that's beyond your capabilities (whatever
those are). Surely if your Mars offers such numerous positive
solutions for sustaining life as we know it, how hard could it be for
Venus?

I'll totally agree that we'll need good speed and perhaps via your
NERVA, such as going for the likes of Europa is certainly a terrific
sort of place worth our terraforming, at least way better off than
doing anything Mars, even if we've sort of missed the boat with
respect to what others may have already been there and done that. Of
course Europa may need to have itself a thermal nuclear core like our
moon, as it's otherwise spinning itself out of control as compared to
our unique moon, as the following context and related links are going
to try and emphasize upon.

I've been thinking (all of my three brain cells worth), if there ever
was a viable other home-world worthy of sufficiently smart reptilian
folks (besides Venus), that consideration might have to become
Sirius/c, or of whatever's within the neighborhood. Though of being
nearly 9 ly distant and roughly another 66,660+ years before our solar
system once again becomes so greatly UV illuminated by the Sirius
group, thus we/Earth obviously have sufficient time to think about
doing something productive with respect to our very unique moon.

Unfortunately, the greater potential for Earth upon obtaining the
likes of lunar He3 or 3He, or most certainly of anything whatsoever ET
worthy, can just as soon get much worse, with this topic being skewed
by the likes of anti-everything contributions from the likes of OM and
of Jay Windley for starters, then there's an entire collective of
their incest cloned Borgs of "spin" and "damage control" folks backing
them up. Of course, you may soon have to suddenly switch pagan Gods in
mid-stream, as I happen believe the sort of God associated with the
likes of Sirius can seriously kick butt.

Here's yet another of my positive contributions as for doing our moon
first, instead of Mars or even Europa, though I'll certainly favor any
honest thoughts upon the likes of Venus, of just our interplanetary
communications with those surviving lizard folk heathens, of which I'm
fairly certain that the likes of GW Bush and his Halburton partners
can eventually mange to pillage with minimal risk.

"Moon, Mars, Venus, Sirius and Earth (so what's the difference?)"

Our Apollo moon only stinks to high heaven, while Mars sucks away at
critical expertise as well as limited resources while polluting
Earth's environment with thousands of tonnes more CO2, and otherwise
extracting billions away from intellectually as well as physically
starving folks. I wonder which is worse off, being a Cathar or another
NASA hugger that's intent upon skewing morality as well as physics
into the nearest space toilet.

I don't mean to be such a total pest about our unique moon but, even
those moons of Mars rotate as unsynchronized about their home world,
as do all other recorded moons, except for the one orbiting Earth.
Now, I wouldn't be having to do this if folks weren't so absolutely
opposing the notions of there being other life besides what's existing
on this Earth. I mean, give me a break, are these folks actually that
pathetic and anti-life or what?

Phobos mean radius: 21 km (13 mi)
Distance from Mars: 9,380 km (5,830 mi)
Period of Rotation: 0.3188 days

Deimos mean radius: 12 km (8 mi)
Distance from Mars: 23,460 km (14,580 mi)
Period of rotation: 1.2625 days

BTW; the mean density of Mars is: 3.95 grams/cm³
which in itself seems is a whole lot more like the composition of our
moon than Earth.

Jupiter's rotation Period: 9.92 hours
Of the 5 primary and 12 or so other moons of Jupiter, even though
there should have been if not concurrently tidal forces at play, yet
there seems to be none of these moons in synchronization with their
home world. Thus once again our unique moon seems somewhat out of step
with the trend of such things.

Another nagging consideration upon those meteorites and shards strewn
about the surface of Mars; considering the entire lack of any
atmospheric buffer zone associated with our moon, surely the lunar
surface environment must be considerably more intensified with the
same sorts of debris, as clearly similar if not worse to what was
imaged by the Mars pathfinder mission, and only recently being
confirmed by what's being imaged as we speak.

As I've stipulated on other pages, the odds of yourself being impacted
by at least a dust-bunny or a gram worth of micro meteorite of
something that's obviously unimpaired from colliding with the moon is
actually quit good, whereas I've averaged those sorts of impacts at 10
km/s, as you must realize that our moon is traveling through space at
roughly 30 km/s (+/- lunar velocity with respect to Earth) thereby
colliding with numerous debris in addition to that which is simply
targeting the moon and being accelerated at the 1.6 m/s/s as captured
by lunar gravity.

So, according to those Apollo images, that are of potentially far
better resolution than even the most recent Mars images, especially if
those quality negatives and/or transparencies were to be scanned at
9600 dpi or even 19,200 dpi, even though somehow these terrific frames
recorded such damn few meteorites and shards, but mostly that of a
desert like surface reflecting average illumination quite nicely at
roughly 55%, without any perceptible mineral colors at that. So, the
question is, which of these two sources of images (Mars/moon) is true
to life, as surely one of them is skewed.

Mars images: http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/...s/80894_fu.jpg

Moon images:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...h_40_5886.html
http://home.arcor.de/yoiks/mondbilde...-107-17446.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-107-17446.jpg

There are certainly far better and worse Apollo lunar photo examples
(depending upon what you're looking for), though you'll still need to
consistantly disregard the total lack of any blast crater, as well as
for those illumination hot spot issues, never minding that for some
unexplained reasons not even the star Sirius could have been imaged,
though apparently careful attention was always given to exclude upon
such horrifically bright stars, not to mention avoiding Venus like the
plague (Venus must have always been on the other side of the sun), and
especially avoiding any of those frames from including Earth along
with a lunar landscape with an astronaut were taboo.

Notice how the final redo issued by NASA on the as16-107-17446.jpg is
rather significantly lesser image quality than of their original, of
which the original includes that infamous "C" rock among a few other
tidbits, but also notice how the background terrain is suddenly so
entirely devoid of meteorite debris, and so nicely illuminating at
that, without ever a single dark basalt rock anywhere within the image
to be seen, much less of any hint of even a vibrant star that still
should have been recorded as a relatively dim point of illumination
(most stars being highly UV worthy and there being no atmosphere to
block/filter such intense UV photons).

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/
Notice how much reflective brightness the lunar surface continually
offers in respect to those 80% reflective moon suits, then notice how
the majority of rocks are actually brighter than their suroundings. I
could certainly go on and on but, what's the point, or perhaps this is
also where we should apply our "high standards and accountability" and
"so what's the difference" factor.

Apparently the fact that there were so few, and otherwise relatively
minimal meteorites and shards strewn about isn't supposed to suggest
anything either. Although, if you'd care to go through any number of
other Apollo images, of which we've all see more than our fair share,
please do offer your notions as to why there's so damn few of those
meteorites and shards, especially when the overall lunar surface had
been so much more so mega impact pulverised and has remained entirely
vulnerable than even Mars. The fact that the lunar surface as
portrayed by those Apollo images seemed to be so darn reflective is
yet another skewed avenue of something that's never been resolved
because, if there were the expected average of 11% reflective index
involved (darkish basalt and meteorite strewn and all), as then the
imaging of those absolutely vibrant stars would have been a rather
simple task, and even somewhat difficult to have avoided and/or pass
up, unless you were an absolute village idiot moron on drugs.

Of course, there's always been a few dozen other pesky issues, as well
as far better qualified folks having their say, where all of which
must be disregarded about their opposing those infamous Apollo
missions on more grounds than I ever imagined. So, all you'll need to
do is skew those laws of physics and to apply whatever conditional
parameters whenever necessary, and lo and behold, as in right out of
that space toilet, in spite of the total lack of whatever rational
sciences, much less independent or even technical expertise support
for those missions, somehow they all happened exactly like our NASA
stipulated, and the last time I'd checked under my pillow, the tooth
fairy left me a million bucks, plus another million of those Halburton
stock options.

Moon/lunar probes for a penny on the dollar/euro;
BTW; I believe that as of today we can easily deliver micro probes of
all sorts onto and even into the lunar surface of our moon, relatively
cheaply and obviously very quickly. This obviously would have enabled
lunar as well as Earth sciences to have been benefiting humanity, of
which we've need this sort of affordable avenue of data for several
decades worth, yet we seem to have absolutely nothing on-line or even
on the books. Seems we haven't a workable plan for actually getting
stuff safely onto the moon, much less retrieving anything, though I've
got numerous ideas and I believe workable solutions that aren't all
that spendy.

Besides all of this pathetically stupid Apollo "yes we did", "no they
didn't" crap, why don't we just cut to the chase by utilizing our
resident warlord's "so what's the difference" WMD policy, and call it
good.

Latest Sirius entry, along with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004):
****** http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm
* http://guthvenus.tripod.com/synchronized-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-earth-venus.htm

Calling Venus;
If you're perchance the least bit interested in the truly hot prospect
of achieving interplanetary communications, as for that quest I've
added lots into this following page;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

David Sereda (loads of his honest ideas and notions upon UV energy),
for best impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA