The future of Lunar exploration?

On 29/03/2011 3:15 AM, David Spain wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

But where are the protruding plumber's helper and mole trap?

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!!!

(Sorry saw one look at the pics and I could not help myself...)

Dave

I must be tired - it took me a minute to pick up on this one! ;-)

On Mar 29, 4:20*am, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 29/03/2011 3:15 AM, David Spain wrote:

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

But where are the protruding plumber's helper and mole trap?

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!!!

(Sorry saw one look at the pics and I could not help myself...)

Dave

I must be tired - it took me a minute to pick up on this one! ;-)

Well, at least you didn't call them a nutcase after taking pains to
lie about what they said. So, consider it progress you low life!
lol.

On Mar 30, 5:39*pm, wrote:
On Mar 29, 4:20*am, Alan Erskine wrote:



On 29/03/2011 3:15 AM, David Spain wrote:

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

But where are the protruding plumber's helper and mole trap?

Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!!!

(Sorry saw one look at the pics and I could not help myself...)

Dave

I must be tired - it took me a minute to pick up on this one! ;-)

Well, at least you didn't call them a nutcase after taking pains to
lie about what they said. *So, consider it progress you low life!
lol.

Speaking about "low life" that's "taking pains to lie", where's your
terrific wealth and power from your $100/tonne hydrogen?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mar 26, 3:23*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

Exploring the lunar surface is a very good idea that somehow our NASA/
Apollo wizards kinda messed up on, so the more raw data the better,
and especially if it’s live data that we here can interact with via
robotics and S-Band microwave communications.

My recent discovered selections of paramagnetic lunar basalt density
are worth 4.0 4.4 g/cm3 (a whole lot closer to that density of
titanium, of which we know our moon has lots), which is considerably
more densely mineral saturated and certainly more airless and a whole
lot tougher basalt mineral composite because of being formed and/or
solidified in such extreme vacuum. This is roughly 25%33% denser
than the NASA/Apollo reported basalts that were extensively grayish
and averaged under 3 g/cm3 and only a few samples peaked at something
over 3.2 g/cm3. Hard to tell if this heavier density of 100% fused
basalt came from whatever impacted the south pole and made that
terrific 2500 km crater, was excavated from the moon itself or
conceivably a composite as representing little of both the moon and
the impactor (which could have been Earth).

This higher density of paramagnetic basalt is suggesting that the
extremely thick crust of our moon (especially of its farside)
represents a considerably a greater portion of the total mass than
previously suggested.

This greater basalt density and it’s subsequent greater toughness may
also help to explain those rather unusually shallow crater depths, as
well as supporting the inverse density theory, that below this robust
crust will hopefully offer a porous or semi-hollow interior (including
having trapped and sealed off whatever fluids). This also goes nicely
with my 0.1% hollow moon theory that I could suppose might conceivably
be worth as much as a 1% hollow moon once certain geology/abiogenic
formed fluids or simply complex mud deposits and those always
radioactive decay generated gasses are easily removed. The ongoing
depletion or subliming of sodium alone should offer considerations of
less density within and especially under that terrific crust.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mar 26, 3:23*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

Exploring the lunar surface with robotic science tools is a very good
idea that somehow our NASA/Apollo wizards kinda messed up, so the more
public shared raw data the better, and especially if it’s live data
that we here can interact with via those deployed robotics and their S-
Band microwave communications, allowing a kind of remote science data
sample on demand.

My somewhat recent discovered selections of paramagnetic lunar basalt
density are worth 4.0 4.45 g/cm3 (a whole lot closer to that density
of titanium of which we know our moon has lots of that titanium
element to work with), which is considerably more densely mineral
saturated and certainly more airless and a whole lot tougher basalt
mineral composite because of being formed and/or solidified in such
extreme vacuum. This is roughly 25%33% denser than the NASA/Apollo
reported basalts that were extensively grayish and averaged well under
3 g/cm3 and only a few samples peaked at something over 3.2 g/cm3.
Hard to tell if this heavier composite density of 100% fused basalt
came from whatever impacted the south pole and made that terrific 2500
km crater, was excavated from the moon itself or conceivably a
composite as representing little of both the moon and the impactor
(which could have been Earth).

This higher density of paramagnetic basalt is suggesting that the
extremely thick crust of our moon (especially of its farside)
represents a considerably a greater portion of the total mass than
previously suggested. The highly probable inverted density could even
suggest that our moon has abiotic oil (inorganic oil) and/or natural
gasses (including methane) within our moon.
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

This greater basalt density and it’s subsequent greater paramagnetic
plus physical toughness may also help to explain those rather
unusually shallow crater depths, as well as supporting the inverse
density interior theory, whereas below this robust crust will
hopefully offer a porous or semi-hollow interior (including having
trapped and sealed off whatever fluids or gasses). This also goes
nicely with my 0.1% hollow moon theory that I could suppose might
conceivably be worth as much as offering a 1% hollow moon once certain
active geology/abiogenic formed fluids or simply complex mud deposits
and those always radioactive decay generated gasses are easily removed
as well as otherwise utilized. The ongoing depletion or subliming of
the sodium element alone should offer considerations of somewhat less
average density within and especially under that terrific and fully
solidified crust.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mar 26, 3:23*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

Exploring the lunar surface with a fleet of private robotic science
tools is a very good idea that somehow our public funded NASA/Apollo
wizards with all their “right stuff” kinda messed up, so the more
private and public shared raw data the better, and especially if any
of it’s live data that we here can interact with via those deployed
robotics and their S-Band microwave communications, allowing a kind of
remote science data sample on demand (surface temperatures, solar
winds if any, atmospheric pressure/vacuum, local atmospheric faint
acoustics or whatever seismic waves, local radiations from whatever
heavy elements [including radon gas], solar radiation contributions,
cosmic X-Rays and especially gamma, electrostatic charge potential [in
relation to its L1], elevated sodium and dust count/cm3 and of course
at least a couple of full spectrum cameras with a good 10:1 and 100:1
zoom plus an inventory of narrow bandpass filters). It would also be
rather nice having a remote triggered 1.25 watt (4500 joule CW)
frequency and amplitude modulated blue laser beam pointed at Earth.
(there’s also a 2 watt green laser cannon that’s off the shelf, so to
speak, and of course a pulsed version of either can deliver at least
another thousand fold)

My somewhat recent discovered selections of paramagnetic lunar basalt
density are worth 4.0 4.45 g/cm3 (a whole lot closer to that density
of titanium of which we know our moon has lots of that titanium
element to work with), which is considerably more densely mineral
saturated and certainly more airless and a whole lot tougher basalt
and mineral composite because of being formed and/or reformed and
solidified in such extreme vacuum. This is roughly 25%33% denser
than the NASA/Apollo reported basalts that were extensively grayish
and averaged well under 3 g/cm3 and only a few samples peaked at
something over 3.2 g/cm3. Hard to tell if this heavier composite
density of 100% fused basalt came from whatever impacted the south
pole and made that terrific 2500 km crater, was excavated from the
moon itself or conceivably a composite as representing little of both
the moon and the impactor (which could have been Earth).

This higher density of paramagnetic basalt is suggesting that the
extremely thick crust of our moon (especially of its farside)
represents a considerably a greater portion of the total mass than
previously suggested. The highly probable inverted density theory
could even suggest that our moon has abiotic oil (inorganic oil) and/
or natural gasses (including methane) within our moon.
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

This greater basalt density and it’s subsequent paramagnetic plus
physical toughness may also help to explain those rather unusually
shallow crater depths, as well as supporting the inverse density
interior theory, whereas below this robust crust will hopefully offer
a porous or semi-hollow interior (including having trapped and sealed
off whatever fluids or gasses). This also goes nicely with my 0.1%
hollow moon theory that I could suppose might conceivably be worth as
much as offering a 1% hollow moon once certain active geology/
abiogenic formed fluids or simply complex mud deposits and those
always radioactive decay generated gasses are easily removed as well
as otherwise utilized. The ongoing depletion or subliming of the
sodium element alone should offer considerations of somewhat less
average density within and especially under that terrific and fully
solidified crust.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Apr 14, 9:57*am, Brad Guth wrote:
On Mar 26, 3:23*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:

http://www.astrobotictechnology.com/

Interesting, to say the least.

Exploring the lunar surface with a fleet of private robotic science
tools is a very good idea that somehow our public funded NASA/Apollo
wizards with all their “right stuff” kinda messed up, so the more
private and public shared raw data the better, and especially if any
of it’s live data that we here can interact with via those deployed
robotics and their S-Band microwave communications, allowing a kind of
remote science data sample on demand (surface temperatures, solar
winds if any, atmospheric pressure/vacuum, local atmospheric faint
acoustics or whatever seismic waves, local radiations from whatever
heavy elements [including radon gas], solar radiation contributions,
cosmic X-Rays and especially gamma, electrostatic charge potential [in
relation to its L1], elevated sodium and dust count/cm3 and of course
at least a couple of full spectrum cameras with a good 10:1 and 100:1
zoom plus an inventory of narrow bandpass filters). *It would also be
rather nice having a remote triggered 1.25 watt (4500 joule CW)
frequency and amplitude modulated blue laser beam pointed at Earth.
(there’s also a 2 watt green laser cannon that’s off the shelf, so to
speak, and of course a pulsed version of either can deliver at least
another thousand fold)

My somewhat recent discovered selections of paramagnetic lunar basalt
density are worth 4.0 4.45 g/cm3 (a whole lot closer to that density
of titanium of which we know our moon has lots of that titanium
element to work with), which is considerably more densely mineral
saturated and certainly more airless and a whole lot tougher basalt
and mineral composite because of being formed and/or reformed and
solidified in such extreme vacuum. *This is roughly 25%33% denser
than the NASA/Apollo reported basalts that were extensively grayish
and averaged well under 3 g/cm3 and only a few samples peaked at
something over 3.2 g/cm3. *Hard to tell if this heavier composite
density of 100% fused basalt came from whatever impacted the south
pole and made that terrific 2500 km crater, was excavated from the
moon itself or conceivably a composite as representing little of both
the moon and the impactor (which could have been Earth).

This higher density of paramagnetic basalt is suggesting that the
extremely thick crust of our moon (especially of its farside)
represents a considerably a greater portion of the total mass than
previously suggested. *The highly probable inverted density theory
could even suggest that our moon has abiotic oil (inorganic oil) and/
or natural gasses (including methane) within our moon.
*http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

*This greater basalt density and it’s subsequent paramagnetic plus
physical toughness may also help to explain those rather unusually
shallow crater depths, as well as supporting the inverse density
interior theory, whereas below this robust crust will hopefully offer
a porous or semi-hollow interior (including having trapped and sealed
off whatever fluids or gasses). *This also goes nicely with my 0.1%
hollow moon theory that I could suppose might conceivably be worth as
much as offering a 1% hollow moon once certain active geology/
abiogenic formed fluids or simply complex mud deposits and those
always radioactive decay generated gasses are easily removed as well
as otherwise utilized. *The ongoing depletion or subliming of the
sodium element alone should offer considerations of somewhat less
average density within and especially under that terrific and fully
solidified crust.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Speaking a little further about the sorts of absolutely weird images
and especially those of technically impossible Kodak moments. Here's
a couple of even better pictures, supposedly suggesting that our NASA
is always honest and perfectly believable through every step of the
way, as well as for supposedly having those "right stuff" guys walking
on the moon. Their ruse must have turned out so super terrific that
they wet their pants laughing, and simply had to Kodak PhotoShop the
living hell out of it, because they obviously could.

Apparently it’s not only perfectly okay but highly approved for our
DARPA and NASA to phony-up whatever it takes, and obviously their
Google Groups army of special damage-control ops and/or their always
stealth version of mercenary Usenet/newsgroup rusemasters get to fly
with it.
http://markkarvon.deviantart.com/art...wins-203506618
To myself this just further testifies and proves beyond any question
as to how downright good our NASA/Apollo and Kodak guys really were at
early PhotoShop, absolutely proving beyond any possible doubt that
they could fake pretty much anything for the sake of further
snookering and dumbfounding us with all that “right stuff” of their
nifty eyecandy and infomercial hype necessary in order to keep our
hard earned loot rolling in. (no doubt even Hitler would have been
impressed)

Can any of you fellow NASA/Apollo turkeys tell which one of these is
the real thing?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Doble11.JPG
Notice that shadowed moonsuit area as having obtained such terrific
amount of fill-in illumination, is actually pretty damn nifty. Now is
that terrific dynamic range for an unfiltered Kodak moment, or what?

http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/19...11-40-5903.jpg
http://images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/19...11-40-5903.jpg
Obviously either of these is not offering any direct scan of their
original image film or transparency, so there’s still no telling what
their original film that’s never allowed outside of its protective
vault, had actually recorded. Somehow that film even failed to record
those white antenna (one each), and of course it’s always nice when
it’s never a contrasty terrain location or having any spot source of
illumination with a great deal of UV making them shadows a whole lot
worse yet.

Remember that the average naked lunar surface by day is not only extra
secondary IR roasting and irradiating everything to death, but it’s
near dark as coal (as well as the local exposed basalt should have
been at least every bit as dark as coal if not near carbon lampblack
from all the accumulated electrostatic charged carbon), so at best it
really doesn’t make for any good or even a ****-poor sunlight
reflector (especially at that extremely low illumination angle, as
though taken at sunrise or sunset), and since it’s also a hard vacuum
there’s nothing but that one terrific spot-source of illumination
called the sun making every shadow extra contrasty, unless you’d care
to point out the terribly bluish earthshine and/or those UV secondary/
recoil photons that should have been unavoidable.

Note that they each lost their little flexible white communications
antennas,
http://www.thewalrus.com/images/apollo11-beforestep.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0603...ollo11_big.jpg
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs46/i/20...by_Bubba77.jpg
http://img.phombo.com/img1/photocomb...eriments_2.jpg
but otherwise they gained an Earth depicted in each visor, perhaps
because any stars like Sirius or possible planets other than Earth
should have been easily recorded within that or at least some other
FOV, especially with having that absolutely terrific kind of
photographic dynamic range. Of course only those of us with a
perverted sense of humor can appreciate such details. Perhaps those
were RadioShack antennas that simply weren’t any good, because they
kept breaking off, and the other guy holding up the necessary shadow-
fill-in sunlight reflector panel was probably a Russian stowaway spy
that they had to keep secret.

Speaking about their having absolutely terrific photographic dynamic
range. Now this next one is some kind of special super-duper film and
near perfection optics, not to mention that short ladder seems a
little deficient for accommodating such a stiff (mobility limited)
moonsuit.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69HR.jpg

Talk about that moon not being the least bit dusty and otherwise
perfectly clumping with extremely high surface tension: “the white
part is styrafoam look on nasa for the hi res pics”

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...e-o-staub..jpg

I can’t but wonder where the hell all that nasty crater dust and lose
shards ever went (supposedly a third headed for Earth, still leaves
66% that had to go somewhere), and especially those volumes derived
from that really big one of 2500 km diameter and 13+ km deep (actually
due to the spherical curvature makes that one at least a few km
deeper, not to mention the rubble and dust backfill). Would any of
you NASA/Apollo wizards care to educate us by doing the impactor plus
its dust and secondary shards math?
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimed....cfm?IM_ID=802

No doubt the future of private explorations by robotics with multiple
science instruments and cameras shouldn’t have any problems getting a
few of the brightest stars along with that physically dark lunar
surface (especially when looking away from the sunrise or sunset), not
to mention the absolute vibrance of that often extremely nearby Venus
as even included alongside Earth and still offering a little something
in the FOV of our physically dark mineral saturated moon.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”