Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Our moon as a viable space station or as accommodating any such outpost
as having been suggested by the http://www.ARC-space.org (Alliance to
Rescue Civilization) rusemasters, as being their NASA approved formula
of our salvation on behalf of accommodating humanity and other life as
we know it, unfortunately sucks real bad. For starters it's of a
physically dark place, extremely dusty as all get-out (to the tune of at
least tens of fluffy meters deep), and it's all remaining as rather
highly electrostatic, getting everything in sight double IR roasted by
day and otherwise extremely sub-frozen by night, whereas it's also
rather easily pulverised and thoroughly allowing everything in sight
plus of whatever's just below that cosmic morgue of a nasty surface as
getting unavoidably secondary/recoil TBI to death, along with the moon
itself being a tad bit locally radioactive to boot. Thus being deep
underground might not even represent a safe bet. The moon surface
environment is most certainly worse off for the likes of human DNA than
whatever our Van Allen badlands have to contribute.

PARTICLES AND FIELDS IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...i?artid=223814
"The lower limit of Van Allen belts that goes down to 200 km of
altitude" has been getting downright testy, as in representing a larger
SAA zone and lo and behold, it's only getting worse off by the year.

Effects of Device Packaging and PC Board Materials on Radiation Dose in
the Die
http://klabs.org/mapld04/abstracts/long_a.pdf
GSO / "Outside the Spacecraft 1,240,000 Krad/year" (I believe that's as
having been based upon a relatively passive/inactive solar year, whereas
a bad solar year might be ten fold wore yet).

The outer Van Allen radiation belt extends from an altitude of about
10,000 to 70,000 km (as well as solar wind distorted and via gravity
extends itself a bit more so towards our moon), having some of its
greatest radiation intensity situated between 15,000 and 25,000 km. GSO
at 36,000 km is supposedly just outside of that maximum dosage zone
(except whenever it's within a sun--Earth--moon alignment), although a
previous Raytheon/TRW Space Data Report as having nailed that GSO
environment dosage while shielded by 2 g/cm2 was still worthy of their
systems having to survive 2e3 Sv/yr, or 548 rads/day and thereby of
nearly 23 rads/hr while being physically shielded by 5/16" of 5086
aluminum, and I believe that average was based upon a somewhat typically
active solar year, which I do believe can get worse off by as much as
another 10 fold from solar spikes in lethal energy that have recently
gone well off scale, having terminated a few of those less rad-hard
satellites in the process, with most other satellites sustaining some
measurable degrade in their capability.

Gamma-Ray Moon
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton...ay_Observatory
Cruising at merely 450 km isn't by any means clear of having to look
through the worse local radiation dosage there is within each of those
Van Allen belts, as having to incorporate whatever the inner plus outer
Van Allen belts have to offer. Therefore the EGRET gamma-ray detector
onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory(CGRO) as having obtained it's
image of our gamma moon was also having to record that composite image
as taking that exposure while looking through some of the worse of
lethal zones of what our magnetosphere has to offer, whereas the moon
simply records as being considerably more gamma worthy than the
surrounding space as having been given those reddish pixels that's
indicating the much weaker dosage, that which unavoidably involves the
bulk of whatever our inner plus outer Van Allen belts have to offer.

There's good reason for ISS keeping itself below the 400 km mark, as
well as their having to avoid the SAA at all cost, which is primarily
having to do with their avoiding the much less intensive inner Van Allen
belt that's still not such a DNA friendly realm, and unfortunately that
inner belt has been dropping like a rock as of the last century, along
with a reported 0.05%/yr reduction in our magnetic flux. If I could
blame that one on GW Bush you know I would, but in this case being such
an SOB of a LLPOF warlord isn't at fault, it's just mother Earth doing
her thing of aging and eventually getting us all radiated to death
because our DNA simply is not by itself evolving as Darwin had hoped.
What's needed is a good dosage of applied intelligent design that'll
make our DNA sufficiently rad-hard, or else we'll eventually need to get
ourselves off this dooms day rock, especially if life manages to survive
long enough to when our solar system is orbiting close to our extra
bright and rad-hot Sirius star/solar system.

There are hard-scientific numbers associated with each and every pixel
of that gamma image. That official gamma spectrum of image which so
happens to include our physically dark moon as seen from within our
protective and thus radiation moderating/attenuating magnetosphere, as
looking so alive in gamma radiation isn't any more so a mistake than are
those radar illuminated images of Venus as having depicted what's
looking so intelligent and rational about a few rather significant
features, so it's perfectly OK if you don't believe me, as you folks can
go fish for yourself.

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...s/S025002.html
"The energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a
model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar
surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Thus, in
high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun."

Those key words of "Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun" means the
surface environment of our physically dark moon is in fact capable of
being far worse off in gamma dosage than walking on our sun. Basically,
there's considerably greater mass per cm3 or per m3 that's available to
interact with, as in more so than whatever those Van Allen belts can
possibly represent. Instead of our moon producing various harmless
secondary/recoil dosage of even the likes of soft-X-rays, as being the
case of what the relative micro density of those Van Allen belts
represent, it's instead generating gamma and unavoidably the
secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays that get produced by way of the
fundamental interaction of cosmic and solar energy as such unavoidably
reacts with the rather considerable and obviously naked density of the
lunar surface, that's basically a composite of sufficiently heavy
elements that represents itself as the cosmic and solar anti-cathode
motherload of producing lethal radiation. At minimums, and especially
by day, we're looking at several hundred rads per hour (with unavoidable
peaks of thousands of rads per hour), that which any damn fool of human
DNA that's taking a moonsuit walk upon that nasty surface will have to
deal with such consequences, and/or soon thereafter must die rather
horrifically from the inside out.

http://www.inconstantmoon.com/lim_9908.htm
"It's cosmic radiation, which is stopped by the Earth's magnetic field,
falls directly onto the lunar surface. This causes atomic decay which
releases the gamma rays."

But then folks, if gamma isn't quite bad enough, we also have those
various X-rays of the raw solar illuminated moon to deal with.
http://www.airynothing.com/high_ener...rces/moon.html
Of course the X-ray albedo of our moon is relatively ****-poor (an
albedo of perhaps not 0.01 or less than 1%), thus for actually being
there in person is simply a whole lot worse off by a good 100+ fold
worse your frail human DNA than having been indicated by what little of
such X-rays are reflected by that portion of our physically dark moon as
getting raw solar illuminated. Too bad we still don't have so much as a
science platform within that nifty LL-1 zone, that which could have been
interactively feeding us live science data from before those hocus-pocus
Apollo missions, and at not half the cost of just one such mission, thus
roughly 5% the cost of the cost and we'd know honest stuff about our
moon, several astronauts would still be alive, plus having obtained even
better Earth science to boot.

Basically there's nothing all that end-user friendly about our moon,
that is unless you're a sufficiently tough rad-hard sort of robot.
Being at LL-1 (60,000 km away from that moon) is certainly a whole lot
better off, but isn't actually a long-term safe enough distance unless
surrounded by an artificial magnetosphere or 50t/m2 of what the CM/ISS
shell should represent.

The surface of Venus, especially of the nighttime season, although
somewhat cooler and especially cooler by way of elevation, that
environment should by rights remain every bit as geothermally active and
thereby sustaining that unavoidably hot surface environment in the
spectrum of IR, however the Sv(1e2 rads) or (1e2 rems) of lethal
radiation dosage from whatever's cosmic and even via solar is actually
of a less dosage than it is for us on Earth, making Venus our best and
nearest rad-hard planet that so happens to have unlimited renewable
energy to burn, that will not actually so easily burn much of anything
because of the rather low amounts of free O2. BTW; atmospheric pressure
is biologically a none-issue unless you're a certified village idiot,
whereas a given change of 4+bar/km could be humanly insurmountable
without involving some applied intelligent design, as improvements to
our bodies that would need to adjust to such changes, so much so that
walking to/from a second floor might not agree with many of us, though
local Venusians as having evolved and/or intelligently adapted, or of
obviously robotics shouldn't much care.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:

At minimums, and especially
by day, we're looking at several hundred rads per hour (with unavoidable
peaks of thousands of rads per hour), that which any damn fool of human
DNA that's taking a moonsuit walk upon that nasty surface will have to
deal with such consequences, and/or soon thereafter must die rather
horrifically from the inside out.

Your statement must rather obviously be false, since the dosages
described would be rather quickly lethal, and yet ten people have, in
fact, walked upon the surface of Luna by daylight, without dying of
radiation poisoning.

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

Your statement must rather obviously be false, since the dosages
described would be rather quickly lethal, and yet ten people have, in
fact, walked upon the surface of Luna by daylight, without dying of
radiation poisoning.

Jordan,
You folks really must really like infomercial-science, as it makes you
feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. I supposed using NASA's
conditional laws of physics is also just what your Third Reich (aka
Skull and Bones) and mostly white Jewish doctors ordered.

Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report?

Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation?

Have you an honest independent and thus replicated clue as to exactly
how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is?

Fortunately Mars is not nearly a naked as our moon, but it's also
further way from being solar shielded, and thus it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather gamma horrific.
Do you know what gamma does whenever interacting rather badly with all
of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter of what that Mars
surface represents?

Ou moon is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's rather nicely
solar illuminated with receiving all sorts of such nasty raw energy that
the surface of Earth never obtains. Is there some hocus-pocus law of
physics reason or skewed logic, as to why our moon shouldn't be worse
off than our lethal Van Allen belts?

Would you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, such as I might share
and share alike on behalf of forking over my copy of the now officially
banished Constellation-X (AKA con_x_dose1) report: (original though
broken link
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/rad...on_x_dose1.pdf)

How about my offering a few shots of Jupiter and that of our fully
illuminated though physically dark moon, as being within the same
photographic frame?

Jupiter - Moon occultation (though incorrectly posted as
"moom.saturn.jpg")
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly published as being
that of our moon and Jupiter as obtained within the same frame and
exposure.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg

If others can manage to have photographed the likes of Jupiter as being
somewhat similar to the moon albedo, then where's the problem with that
of Venus and of a few other items, and especially from that naked lunar
environment and being optically unfiltered to boot.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad, thanks for this.I know only a bit of astrophysics, mostly reading
from popular books. I had wondered about the Van Allen belts and
thought the moon must be an even impossibly harsher environment, being
exposed in the way you describe.
--
Yrs evr.
'foolsrushin.'



Brad Guth wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

Your statement must rather obviously be false, since the dosages
described would be rather quickly lethal, and yet ten people have, in
fact, walked upon the surface of Luna by daylight, without dying of
radiation poisoning.

Jordan,
You folks really must really like infomercial-science, as it makes you
feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. I supposed using NASA's
conditional laws of physics is also just what your Third Reich (aka
Skull and Bones) and mostly white Jewish doctors ordered.

Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report?

Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation?

Have you an honest independent and thus replicated clue as to exactly
how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is?

Fortunately Mars is not nearly a naked as our moon, but it's also
further way from being solar shielded, and thus it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather gamma horrific.
Do you know what gamma does whenever interacting rather badly with all
of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter of what that Mars
surface represents?

Ou moon is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's rather nicely
solar illuminated with receiving all sorts of such nasty raw energy that
the surface of Earth never obtains. Is there some hocus-pocus law of
physics reason or skewed logic, as to why our moon shouldn't be worse
off than our lethal Van Allen belts?

Would you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, such as I might share
and share alike on behalf of forking over my copy of the now officially
banished Constellation-X (AKA con_x_dose1) report: (original though
broken link
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/rad...on_x_dose1.pdf)

How about my offering a few shots of Jupiter and that of our fully
illuminated though physically dark moon, as being within the same
photographic frame?

Jupiter - Moon occultation (though incorrectly posted as
"moom.saturn.jpg")
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly published as being
that of our moon and Jupiter as obtained within the same frame and
exposure.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg

If others can manage to have photographed the likes of Jupiter as being
somewhat similar to the moon albedo, then where's the problem with that
of Venus and of a few other items, and especially from that naked lunar
environment and being optically unfiltered to boot.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On 12 Aug 2006 10:40:35 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"'foolsrushin.'" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Brad, thanks for this.I know only a bit of astrophysics, mostly reading
from popular books. I had wondered about the Van Allen belts and
thought the moon must be an even impossibly harsher environment, being
exposed in the way you describe.

As little as you know of astrophysics (and space physics in general),
you'll know even less if you pay any attention to Brad. He knows very
little of it, much of what he knows is wrong, and he's nuts.

Sure, Rand, but consider these descriptions of the lunar environment!
Sounds a bit like what he says!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859765.html

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Aug 2006 10:40:35 -0700, in a place far, far away,
"'foolsrushin.'" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to ... . [One of those monitors! Ed.]

Brad, thanks for this.I know only a bit of astrophysics, mostly reading
from popular books. I had wondered about the Van Allen belts and
thought the moon must be an even impossibly harsher environment, being
exposed in the way you describe.

As little as you know of astrophysics (and space physics in general),
you'll know even less if you pay any attention to Brad. He knows very
little of it, much of what he knows is wrong, and he's nuts.

I do not think I'd make one step for mankind - or even given 1/6th
earth gravity, bounce up and down in what I needed to protect me!
--
'foolsrushin.'

"'foolsrushin.'" wrote in message
oups.com

Brad, thanks for this.I know only a bit of astrophysics, mostly reading
from popular books. I had wondered about the Van Allen belts and
thought the moon must be an even impossibly harsher environment, being
exposed in the way you describe.
--

First off, I'm glad that I could be of some help, and otherwise pleased
that you're not picking apart my somewhat dyslexic encrypted syntax, and
a few other poorly structured comments.

I try to say what I mean and mean what I say, but it doesn't always come
out as I'd planned.

Thus far, I can't discover why that physically dark moon of our's
shouldn't be as rad-hot as having been indicated, as well as being
physically radioactively, and thereby worse off than any badlands within
those Van Allen Belts. At times it's got to be absolute Sv hell, with
all of that unavoidable reactive energy coming at yourself from every
imaginable local direction, as derived from at least 3.14e6 m2 worth of
nasty/reactive moon terrain, plus your having to deal with whatever's of
solar/cosmic influx that's also unavoidably arriving at nearly full
force, and at times you can add a little extra of whatever gets
deflected by mother Earth's magnetosphere.

The notion of my LSE-CM/ISS being 60,000 km away (LL-1), as for
eventually offering a 1e9 m3 Space-Depot/habitat that's surrounded by
roughly 16 meters of a shield density that's worth 50t/m2, constructed
of a mostly basalt composite that should make it safe enough for the
long haul of folks spending a lifetime onboard, and of those human
expeditions via well shielded elevator pods that'll efficiently trek
up/down a given tether for getting folks to/from the relative safety of
the cool earthshine illuminated surface environment of that otherwise
physically and biologically nasty moon, as such efforts should be short
term manageable while surrounded by as little as 3t/m2 (that's roughly a
meter thick shell). However, outside of the elevator pod and of a
fairly passive/quiet solar period is going to be at best a few hours
(possibly one day) worth of moonsuit exposure before having maxed out
your career dosage limit (however, if you have established a personal
cash of banked bone marrow, and have counted each of your lucky stars,
that survivable limit could become worth a number of those earthshine
illuminated days, and perhaps as great as 5 Sv, although you might soon
thereafter become blind, plus having a few other private parts no longer
working).

Too bad we still don't have a few of those very basic interactive
science instruments as honestly reporting from that deck, or even so
much as an energy efficient form of station-keeping science platform
within LL-1. I guess we'll have to wait for China to help us out.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

Your statement must rather obviously be false, since the dosages
described would be rather quickly lethal, and yet ten people have, in
fact, walked upon the surface of Luna by daylight, without dying of
radiation poisoning.

long rant about the incredibly radioactivity of the Moon

Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're
claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to
the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later!

- Jordan

'foolsrushin.' wrote:
Sure, Rand, but consider these descriptions of the lunar environment!
Sounds a bit like what he says!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859765.html

I read those reports, and the levels of radiation they're talking about
are _far_ lower than what Brad was claiming. I suspect that Brad may
be confusing "rads," "millirads," and "rems."

- Jordan

On 13 Aug 2006 04:14:22 -0700, "Jordan"
wrote:

:
:Brad Guth wrote:
: "Jordan" wrote in message
: oups.com
:
: Your statement must rather obviously be false, since the dosages
: described would be rather quickly lethal, and yet ten people have, in
: fact, walked upon the surface of Luna by daylight, without dying of
: radiation poisoning.
:
:long rant about the incredibly radioactivity of the Moon
:
:Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
:surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
:experience unharmed?

Well, *obviously* that was all faked on a
soundstage in Burbank. Didn't you see Capricorn
One?

That was a documentary, right?
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'