Science Journalism

Geoffrey A. Landis,
It seems that your "Science Journalism" sucks even bigger and better
than a black hole.

Even the notions of Russian and/or the Chinese robotically mining the
moon may have always been a bit easier than we'd thought. However,
before we common folk, the likes of "tj Frazir" and myself (in other
words the apparent scum of the Earth according to whatever the
mainstream status quo has to say) can fully appreciate "What's actually
HOT and NASTY about Venus", whereas instead we may need to regress
ourselves by a few decades in order to fully appreciate the
hard-science that's recently become available as pertaining to what's
actually all that HOT and NASTY about our Moon?

The task of getting whatever safely and thus having to softly deploy
upon the extremely dusty moon is doable as long as those forms of
robotics are small enough so as to being least massive, so as to
slowing the arrival of them suckers down to perhaps 10 m/s and, they
are of a sufficient surface coverage configuration so as to not
summarily sink out of sight.

Besides the raw solar influx aspects of 1.4 kw/m2 scorching
continuously upon most any given portion of the moon for nearly a month
at a time, thus getting whatever's dark and nasty extremely hot and not
to mention damn reactive as all get out. How about for the all around
sporting heck of it all, lets say we jump off the mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP that's been entirely owned and operated by our
NASA/Apollo rusemasters, in order to discuss our going back to our moon
for the very first time, so as to get an honest to God grasp upon
whatever the lunar atmosphere is actually all about. Of course, I'm
speaking robotically since it's usually so downright hot, reactive and
physically nasty or otherwise just damn cold and nasty upon our moon,
not to mention that robotics are certainly a whole lot cheaper than
clumping moon-dirt and obviously so much safer as compared to human
efforts and, since we're talking of accomplishing this as a one way
robotic ticket to ride and there shouldn't hardly be any R&D required,
as such robots are going to be damn fast at getting the job done, and
without any need of their having banked bone marrow standing by.

Seems rather gosh darn pathetically odd that there was never one usenet
contribution or even a worthy sub-topic generated thought as to
appreciating this perfectly nifty NYT published consideration;
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...201e82b060a176
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

Now researchers at Boston University, who two years ago determined
that the rarefied gas bubble surrounding the Moon extended 5,000 miles
high, say new studies show that the lunar atmosphere reaches out twice
as far.

The astronomers, Dr. Michael Mendillo and Dr. Jeffrey Baumgardner of
the Center for Space Physics at Boston University, said that during
the eclipse the Moon was totally in Earth's shadow, blocking the
bright moonlight that obscures observations of gases in the lunar
atmosphere. Under these conditions, the astronomers were able to
detect the faint glow of sodium gas, which serves as a marker for
other gases in the lunar atmosphere.

"We were surprised to find that this glow extended to over nine times
the radius of the Moon, to a height of about 14,000 kilometers, or
9,000 miles above the Moon's surface," Mendillo said.

The researchers say their observations have enabled them to rule out
some theories on the origin of the lunar atmosphere. They believe that
the most likely explanation is the evaporation of atoms from the lunar
surface when it is struck by light particles called photons coming
from sunlight. Sodium and other elements escape the surface through
erosion caused by the bombardment of photons.

The astronomers earlier ruled out a suggestion that the lunar
atmosphere was formed by the constant bombardment of the surface by
micrometeorites. If the micrometeorite theory was true, they said, the
atmosphere would be evenly distributed instead of being irregular in
shape, as their measurements indicate.

Another theory holds that solar wind -- charged particles streaming
from the Sun -- kicks up surface atoms as it lashes the lunar surface.
But the researchers said this theory now appeared to be eliminated
because Earth's magnetic field traps solar wind and shields the lunar
surface during the full-moon phase, when their observations show the
tenuous lunar atmosphere fully extended above the surface.
-

If the regular lunar atmosphere extends out as far as having been
reported, then obviously doing the math of what was at the time of Nov.
1993 as having been detectable at 8r (14,000 km) off the lunar deck as
representing perhaps 100 atoms/cm3 worth of sodium, whereas that amount
certainly represents quit a bit of what's compiled upon the deck
(12.8e6/cm3 or 12.8e9/m3), especially since sodium is most certainly
one of the lighter elements of available mass that's associated within
the mostly basalt lunar surface that's having been continually giving
berth to such sodium gas. Obviously from meteor impacts that
contributed a great deal of further insult to injury were subsequently
generating massive amounts of additional sodium atmosphere, thereby
having co-generated other elements such as good old O2 of which the
molecular speed of hot O2 simply wouldn't have been so easily excavated
away by the typical hot and nasty gauntlet of solar winds (100~300
km/s).

Upon being under siege my a nasty gauntlet of micro and not so micro
meteorites might easily suggest having multiplied the atmospheric
population of sodium by as great as a billion fold, making the near
surface sodium density worth 6.4e15/m3 plus the other heavier elements
as equally having been released becoming near worthy of creating 0.028
bar.

This image and information as to Leonids impacting the Moon imposes
further notions as to what the intensity of such impacts created with
respect to the visible aspects of sodium.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26oct_1.htm
Without a surface deployed probe taking various direct measurements, as
such we can't possibly begin to imagine what that surface environment
situation would have looked and felt like up close and personal. Of
course I've tried several times to suggest we need this sort of raw
data and, lo and behold each and every time the mainstream status quo
of need-to-know and otherwise taboo/nondisclosure flak was
insurmountable.

Besides the O2 that most certainly had to have been made available,
there's also Argon, Xenon, possibly a touch of CO2 plus other extremely
heavy elements, including the likes of existing Rn-222(radon) that's
around most of the time as having been naturally created by the
available Ra-226(radium) and via secondary/recoil reactions as having
been solar and cosmic contributed. Therefore, our moon is not nearly as
devoid of an atmosphere as we'd thought. As for deploying the modern
day micro probes of perhaps as little as one kg becomes quite doable,
with somewhat larger deployments accomplished as each of these highly
affordable efforts produces a better understanding of what other
methods can be achieved within such a thin but otherwise available
atmosphere that's actually fairly respectable considering the 1/6th
gravity factor.

According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."

"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy, but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the
heavier ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier
molecules were not present."

"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average
260m/s which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules
(m=28) on the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a
fifth of the escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all
molecules travel at the average velocity, some travel faster and leak
away. The Earth isn't able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they
average about a fifth of Earth's escape velocity."

"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."

Of course, for building and sustaining that sort of a radon atmosphere,
as for that to happen the moon requires having a good amount of
background cash of radioactive elements including Radium(Ra-226) as for
generating the Rn-222 gas, although a good amount of raw solar influx
and thus secondary/recoil reactions might otherwise accomplish this
same task, that plus the matter of accepted fact that our moon has been
identified as being considerably more radioactive than Earth shouldn't
have gone to waste.

Fortunately for us humans terraforming our moon into being livable (at
least within seems doable), radium (Ra-226) half life is 1600 years and
thus the radon as having been generated shouldn't be around forever. In
fact, if our icy proto-moon wasn't so gosh darn newish, as such most of
the radioactive raw elements simply would have faded away by now, that
is for other than whatever's continually solar and cosmic contributed
and supposedly responsible for creating the amounts of sequestered He3,
of which someone eventually needs to go there and process for obtaining
that nifty substance before Earth runs itself entirely out of
fossil/geological based energy and we manage to turn our Earth into
another Mars.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.

On 2005-09-17, Thomas Womack wrote:

[Sorry about the delay, but one or two may still be curious]

Like Ceres was called "asteroid" when this word directly means
"mini-planet".

'Asteroid' means 'star-like'; the term was coined in 1802, after the
discovery of Ceres and after it was seen that the disc of Ceres
couldn't be resolved. "planetoid", likewise, means 'planet-like', and
I suspect the asteroids got labelled planetoids after spectroscopy
started to show what they were made of. Can't find a decent coinage
date for 'planetoid'; I don't have OED access.

I finally got around to poking a friend who has access:

1803 Edin. Rev. I. 430 Why may we not coin such a phrase as Planetoid?
1803 HERSCHEL in Phil. Trans. XCIII. 339 It is not in the least material
whether we call them asteroids, as I have proposed; or planetoids, as an
eminent astronomer, in a letter to me, suggested.

(Herschel is the first citation given for "asteroid", too, in 1802. Busy
chap.)

--
-Andrew Gray

Geoffrey A. Landis,
Of "Science Journalism" I'm not. Of the truth and nothing but the truth
(math, dyslexic and syntax errors to boot) I am.

Without any regard to whatever observationology should have to offer
(because it seems with most of the mainstream status quo of seeing
whatever is not believing anyway, unless it's another WMD disguised as
a big-ass fire-engine truck or that of a donkey hauling a cart with
essentially a butt-load of pop-pop rockets);

I'd like to ask from the ET perspective, as to why pick Venus when Mars
is simply so much further away, mostly sub-frozen, hardly any
atmosphere, thus easily pulverised and quite nicely TBI to death?

This time I'm only thinking just a little further outside of my usual
box;

What say that it's been an ET game of HIDE and SEEK (of planetary
pillaging and plundering right under our brown noses) all along.

This topic may be somewhat like "crop-circles" on steroids, with the
exception that I believe ETs are playing a for real finders keepers.
However, since we're mostly snookered (many of us having been snookered
to death), thus we're so dumb and dumber that we can't even find Osama
bin Laden, nor do we realize what an absolute LLPOF SOB of a resident
warlord(GW Bush) we have running us amuck, thereby what chance in hell
(perhaps literally) would we have of uncovering even that of a somewhat
massive ET operations as having transpired upon Venus?

If you were an ET as having been sent on a expedition to a nearby solar
system, as in somewhat out and about looking for a viable planet to
pillage and plunder, such as looking for a viable orb as having rare
minerals and possibly the likes of diamonds, especially if interested
in obtaining atomic elements (thus you certainly wouldn't want an
extremely old Mars like planet that's already past its atomic half-life
and having a nearly dead core to boot), however if there was another
somewhat geologically newish planet as per having an ample supply of
ready-made green/renewable energy at your disposal might represent just
the ticket, especially if having so much spare energy that you didn't
have to deplete whatever your spaceship and/or spaceplane had of
essential get-home energy (possibly He3/Deuterium fusion), that or
perhaps just having a good inventory of Radium(Ra226)--Radon(Rn222)
being of a fairly powerful ion thruster fuel, the same energy that got
yourself and whatever motley crew into our solar system in the first
place. What if those choices of pillagable planets became the threesome
of Venus, Earth and Mars. If you had to pick; Which one would you most
go for?

Remember that you're already a good million or so years more advanced
than us humans, thus seasoned space-traveling ETs, whereas if need be
you could possibly get by on Titan, and since you're certainly not the
least bit heathen nor nearly as snookered and thus least dumbfounded,
whereas chances are that you and your crew actually know a little
something extra about applied physics, and you'd think knowing the
realistic limitations as to exactly how much cold or otherwise hot and
downright nastiness you can manage to survive upon without your having
to drag every last stitch of the entire expedition requirements along
for the ride. In other words, it would be darn nice to getting situated
upon a planet where the likes of having surplus green/renewable energy
is essentially everywhere you'd care to settle in for the next 100,000
years.

Remember that you'd want the least possible resistance from whatever
locals.
Remember that getting yourself to/from whatever orbit needs to be
energy manageable.
Remember that getting summarily pulverised out of nowhere isn't exactly
part of your plan-A.
Remember about background and influx of lethal radiation that'll need
to remain as minimized.
Remember that you would not want yourself or your montely crew getting
infected with lethal microbes.
Remember that even being space-traveling ETs, that you still have
biological and certain other limitations.
Remember that you'd like privacy, keeping as much as possible out of
sight and thus out of neighboring minds.

Especially important, as much as possible keeping your expedition of
whatever operations out of sight and thus out of the nearby heathen
minds of such absolute bigoted and arrogant fools that'll invent WMD
just for justifying yet another perpetrated blood-sport of a war and,
as otherwise for their pretentious ruse of global energy domination, by
way of taking the energy resources of whatever belongs to others or, at
least keeping such potentially affordable energy out of the hands of
any competitive groups that might actually accomplish a few too many
good things at less than 10% the cost.

Therefore, in ET/ETI terms of which planet to plunder and pillage; is
it going to be Mars, Earth or Venus?

That part about my suggesting these ETs being a millions or so years
older is only based upon whatever it'll take humanity, especially since
we have no intentions of our NOT being at war, even if it's for an
entirely phony baloney reason. Whereas if these ETs that I perceive as
being on Venus were not of the perpetrated cold-war and make-war types,
but otherwise focused their talents and perhaps their just as limited
home-world resources as Earth upon the positive aspects of improving
their quality of life and the advancement of their science, chances are
they could be thousands of years less evolved and still they'd have
space-travel nailed.

Of course, there's absolutely no roon in the "Science Journalism Inn"
for such nonsense.
~

Kurt Vonnegut would have to agree; WAR is WAR, thus "in war there are
no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal
with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules,
such as GW Bush.
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm