Moon Dust Threat?

For the honest sake of cutting down on those spendy deployed
kilograms, why not employ radar instead of laser?

Our NASA/Apollo cost was pretty much of any amount you'd care to
suggest, because those cold-war accounting methods were never exactly
fair and square. Basically, if our government says they'd spent $1,
you can pretty much count on that spent dollar costing us $10 (not
including inflationary factors).

According to the official record, those combined Apollo missions alone
only cost us a mere $25 billion, but that's not exactly including the
other $125 billions it took for having accomplished all of their
previous R&D, cover-thy-butt recovery from their Apollo 10 fiasco,
plus those multiple LEOs, other spendy research probes and subsequent
human test flights, as well as for having sent those robotic related
missions that supposedly kept our Apollo wizards on track, plus our
having to contend with loads of secondary investments of sustaining
their status quo ever since having hidden those Third Reich Yids that
accomplished all the really important stuff.

Secondly, if all of that $150 billion was taken in wussy 1967~1972
dollars, as such isn't hardly worth 10% of 2008 dollars.

So, if going by way of those 1967 fly-by-rocket standards and of them
old deflated dollars, whereas at the time it really only took $25
billions per cold-war Apollo mission that got at most 16.5 tonnes
worth of lander, crew and technology headed for the lunar deck, of
which at most 10% of that was their actual working payload of live
crew and their essential tools and science instruments that got
deployed and utilized, and that's not even taking into account the
following decades of our having to facilitate and fully employ most of
those folks along with full and extended family benefits, as well as
our having to safely store and protect all those archives of that era
(-700 boxes of critical mission data), accomplishing countless
thousands of spendy publications and getting it all pushed into those
public textbooks as though it was every bit as good as the word of
God.

After expending most of their fuel for retrobraking everything into
that close lunar orbit, they had supposedly accomplished getting 32.5
tonnes worth of combined space crafts and payload into that working
orbit, roughly half of which was headed for the deck.

That 10% worth is getting 1,650 kg of crew and mission technology, as
per our having invested upon average $25 billion, or roughly speaking
of $15 million of those hard earned 1967 dollars per working/active
mission kg, or even if you'd like using $1.5 million/kg for those
insisting upon our using the total lander mass (including all of its
fuel), of which this still makes my previous statement of $100,000/kg
as a suggested cost per kg look rather conservative. This makes the
argument for deploying a very low mass item of such storage efficient
radar reflectors of paper thin aluminum worth as little as 0.75 kg
each, and that's not hardly 1% the combined stored mass of their
having to safely pack along those substantially robust
retroreflectors, as such making radar reflectors look pretty damn
cheap.

In other words, they could have just as easily deployed 100
substantial radar reflectors per mission for roughly the same mass and
volume of any one laser optical retroreflector array, although one
such basic radar reflector per mission would have been sufficient. Of
course most of their mission remains are in various forms of aluminum
and steel, and as such should be good enough at reflecting radar
energy as compared to all of that the dusty lunar soil.

The Apollo 11 reflector unit of merely 77 kg(plus extra mass for the
safe onboard storage of that robust item) and the more substantial
Apollo 15's retroreflector of 300 corner cubes was a supersized array
of 259 kg(plus extra mass on behalf of onboard storage), whereas a
flat pack of a paper thin aluminum radar reflector of fairly good size
wouldn't have had to weigh at most any more than 1 kg, and would not
have required any special protective packaging or robust storage
considerations. In fact, a foil radar retroreflector of as little as
0.1 kg should have more than done the trick.

Out of 171 tonnes of Earthly stuff that's still on the moon (as mostly
having impacted or at best hard landed), whereas that's actually
offering us one heck of a lot of radar reflective aluminum and other
metallic alloys that shouldn't be all that hard to find their remains
using radar imaging, especially since most of the dusty lunar surface
isn't terribly metallic or otherwise radar signal reflective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen..._Moon_landings
"Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera
by Apollo 16 on April 21, 1972 from the surface of the Moon."

Unfortunately this sort of image proves only that an optically suited
camera that's using UV sensitive film can record a combined view of
Earth and stars from space (such as obtained from the moon's L1) along
with having those multiple stars which are not 1% as bright as the UV
albedo worth of Venus. It does however fully demonstrate that in the
far-UV spectrum there is a great deal of cosmic contributed energy to
deal with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AS16-123-19657.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-123-19657.jpg

BTW, regular Kodak film is more sensitive to the near-UV and violet
spectrum than is the human eye, and of unfiltered CCDs are extremely
UV sensitive. Our raw solar spectrum offers a great deal of UV, near-
UV and violet intensity to work with, of which would have made and
unfiltered Kodak moment look rather bluish if not a wee bit of an
unavoidable violet tint or exaggerated hue.

-

At certain radar frequencies and for so much as their having left an
empty beer can behind on that physically dark and dusty surface of our
moon, as such that sort of radar reflective and microwave resonating
item would have lit up a given radar imaging pixel as though we'd left
a battleship parked on that dusty and somewhat salty old moon.

Secondly, of such well known and thus entirely terrestrial proven
radar reflectors at not 1% the mass and less than 10% the stored
volume of those spendy corner cube retroreflectors could have been and
obviously should have been deployed, as well as for those passive
items not having cost 1% of what those spendy corner cube arrays set
us back. (actually the real cost saving is in per kg not having to be
deployed onto the lunar surface, was worth at the very least $100,000/
kg in NASA/Apollo era loot, or in today's era of being worth a cool $M/
kg)

Are any of you getting this picture as clear as a chapel bell S-band
transponder that's parked within the moon's L1, or are you still
snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return, as I was 8+
years ago?

If our moon is so taboo/nondisclosure rated, then why don't you folks
try telling us where that once upon a time moon of Venus is?
- Brad Guth

Ponder your way through this one:
A few of us outsiders have been sufficiently correct about our naked
moon, in that much of our terrestrial physics and replicated science
that relates to those spendy fly-by-rocket Apollo missions, and about
our reactive/anticathode moon that's so physically dark, simply
doesn't add up according to that holy grail of our NASA/Apollo Old
Testament.

If we'd landed upon and collectively (US+USSR) having left 171 tonnes
of our mostly metallic crap on that moon, much of it physically
sizable or having become impact scattered over a km+ radius unless
that surface dust at impact was simply too thick, you'd think most any
GB-SAR obtained image is unavoidably going to look in places somewhat
like a seriously lit up Christmas tree parked in the center of an open
pit coal mine.

I believe that somewhat old radar imaging resolution via Arecibo is
actually worthy of 20 meters/pixel, and having so much as an empty
beer can within any one of those 20 meter pixels is in fact going to
light up that given GB-SAR pixel by pixel observation quite nicely,
especially when all of that crystal dry cosmic debris as moon dust
that's surrounding that empty beer can is hardly anything but radar
signal reflective.

Sadly, not even God or those of his/her minion wizards can help the
likes of our MI5/NSA/CIA~NASA's Usenet cesspool of spooks and moles,
or so many brown-nosed others of their pretend atheist kind. Of
course otherwise those terrestrial smart brown-nosed folks of the all-
knowing mainstream status quo or bust (aka Skull and Bones semitic
Third Reich) could have always used any one of those true to life
virtual simulations via any number of public owned supercomputers in
order to easily prove myself wrong, though they've all had nearly 8
years and counting with less than zero/zilch worth of favorable
results so far.

I guess it's still Usenet 0, Guth 1.

BTW, remote PC/mouse tampering is a federal offence (pretty hard to
miss the per cession "Error Console" reporting and to such loss of
mouse/cursor control as so often happening), and I've just posted
another topic "To Tell the Truth" for all the warm and fuzzy enjoyment
of those diehard naysayers and brown-nosed minions of the mainstream
status quo, not unlike most others in Usenet.
- Brad Guth


On Nov 26, 4:29 am, surfduke wrote:
See this link:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Wat...ndust_999.html

Looks like the Space 1999 Eagle Pad is out, (2001 dome covered elev.
pad is in, (LOL)). I have seen the camera on display, (but never read
about the study refer. to in this article).

Have a great day,

Carl

On Nov 26, 4:29 am, surfduke wrote:
See this link:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Wat...ndust_999.html

Looks like the Space 1999 Eagle Pad is out, (2001 dome covered elev.
pad is in, (LOL)). I have seen the camera on display, (but never read
about the study refer. to in this article).

Have a great day,

Carl

Besides our moon being extremely dusty, why exactly is all of that
dust and even moon rock so entirely of such a deep blue hue?

Also, where's Venus; such as of Apollo 14, or A-11 and even as of
A-16?

In other words, how the heck did our NASA/Apollo wizards manage to
hide an entire planet the size and brightness of Venus?
- Brad Guth

Besides our moon being extremely dusty and even a touch salty, why
exactly is all of that dust and even moon basalt rock looking so
entirely of such a deep blue hue?

Also, as of our NASA/Apollo missions, where's Venus; such as of
Apollo 14, or A-11 and even as of A-16?

In other words of my limited but honest wisdom, how the heck did our
NASA/Apollo wizards ever manage to hide an entire planet the size and
good brightness of Venus?
- Brad Guth


surfduke wrote:
See this link:

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Wat...ndust_999.html

Looks like the Space 1999 Eagle Pad is out, (2001 dome covered elev.
pad is in, (LOL)). I have seen the camera on display, (but never read
about the study refer. to in this article).

Have a great day,

Carl