LRO; Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified

LRO is up and away. Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

~ BG

On Jun 19, 1:28*am, BradGuth wrote:
LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

*~ BG


We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.

On Jun 19, 4:21*pm, Warhol wrote:
On Jun 19, 1:28*am, BradGuth wrote:



LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

*~ BG

We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.

I'd bet there's some kind of technical malfunction that limits or
restricts their camera resolution, just enough to make it difficult or
nearly impossible to clearly identify the remains of our Apollo stuff.

As I'd said before, I'll buy into those robotic one-way hard landings,
but that's about it as long as so much of our Apollo R&D plus
subsequent documentation is missing in action, so to speak.

The search for surface or near surface ice is just another ruse.
However, within that unusually thick and mascon populated crust should
be a few geode pockets of some kind of mineral brines, and of course
the solid basalt itself should still contain microscopic amounts (46
ppm) of water, or one tonne of water from 46 million tonnes worth of
vaporized basalt.

~ BG

On Jun 18, 4:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

JAXA and ISRO are not certain of anything, and China is just into
keeping most everything of their lunar mission a big dark secret,
although they each suspect via remote instruments that frozen water
could still exist on our naked and unavoidably reactive moon. Oddly
99.9999% of their public funded mission science isn’t publicly
accessible, and of what little has been published isn’t of their best
data nor well enough presented. It’s as though JAXA and ISRO simply
do not know how best to organize their public funded data and how to
best utilize the www as their public science archive.

However, our very own LRO and LCROSS missions do not seem to be of any
interest to those claiming we’re been there and done that Apollo
thing.

“LRO; Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified”
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...c4ad633?hl=en#

The LROC of 0.5 meter resolution should more than do the trick,
especially with having such a wide spectrum for detecting lunar
minerals, deposits and with extreme dynamic range giving more than
enough earthshine illumination sensitivity for even the mostly dark as
coal surface. Of whatever the optical cameras of LRO do not pick up,
the SAR imaging and multiple other instruments will.

Even if there’s scant amounts of solid water or any damp/frozen
crystals of mineral saturations hiding within deep and continually
dark polar craters shouldn’t go unnoticed, although at 3e-15 bar I’d
have my doubts, in that anything resembling raw ice or frozen brine is
more likely going to have to be sequestered deep within geode pockets
having solid (vapor tight) shells.

Too bad that after 4 decades of our best hocus-pocus and supposed
technological advances, we still do not have any viable fly-by-rocket
lander that can safely manage a controlled decent, downrange and soft
landing. Instead we get yet another spendy impactor kind of probe,
and at that not even a LUNAR-A kind of surface penetration probe, or
any other capable kind of surviving impactor.

~ BG

On Jun 20, 1:39*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:21*pm, Warhol wrote:



On Jun 19, 1:28*am, BradGuth wrote:

LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

*~ BG

We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.

I'd bet there's some kind of technical malfunction that limits or
restricts their camera resolution, just enough to make it difficult or
nearly impossible to clearly identify the remains of our Apollo stuff.

As I'd said before, I'll buy into those robotic one-way hard landings,
but that's about it as long as so much of our Apollo R&D plus
subsequent documentation is missing in action, so to speak.

The search for surface or near surface ice is just another ruse.
However, within that unusually thick and mascon populated crust should
be a few geode pockets of some kind of mineral brines, and of course
the solid basalt itself should still contain microscopic amounts (46
ppm) of water, or one tonne of water from 46 million tonnes worth of
vaporized basalt.

*~ BG



where is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?

On Jun 21, 8:25*pm, Warhol wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:39*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Jun 19, 4:21*pm, Warhol wrote:

On Jun 19, 1:28*am, BradGuth wrote:

LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

*~ BG

We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.

I'd bet there's some kind of technical malfunction that limits or
restricts their camera resolution, just enough to make it difficult or
nearly impossible to clearly identify the remains of our Apollo stuff.

As I'd said before, I'll buy into those robotic one-way hard landings,
but that's about it as long as so much of our Apollo R&D plus
subsequent documentation is missing in action, so to speak.

The search for surface or near surface ice is just another ruse.
However, within that unusually thick and mascon populated crust should
be a few geode pockets of some kind of mineral brines, and of course
the solid basalt itself should still contain microscopic amounts (46
ppm) of water, or one tonne of water from 46 million tonnes worth of
vaporized basalt.

*~ BG

where *is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?

I'll have to recheck and see exactly what happened. Their intended
impact should have been in plain view, and a fairly impressive impact
at that.

At just one degree, it should have bounced a few times. Instead it
just kind of sank out of sight.

~ BG

On Jun 21, 8:25*pm, Warhol wrote:
On Jun 20, 1:39*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Jun 19, 4:21*pm, Warhol wrote:

On Jun 19, 1:28*am, BradGuth wrote:

LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

*~ BG

We'll see if they make it. Right now, they can't figure out how they
made it the first time. No doubt.

I'd bet there's some kind of technical malfunction that limits or
restricts their camera resolution, just enough to make it difficult or
nearly impossible to clearly identify the remains of our Apollo stuff.

As I'd said before, I'll buy into those robotic one-way hard landings,
but that's about it as long as so much of our Apollo R&D plus
subsequent documentation is missing in action, so to speak.

The search for surface or near surface ice is just another ruse.
However, within that unusually thick and mascon populated crust should
be a few geode pockets of some kind of mineral brines, and of course
the solid basalt itself should still contain microscopic amounts (46
ppm) of water, or one tonne of water from 46 million tonnes worth of
vaporized basalt.

*~ BG

where *is that Japanese probe that was entented to crash on the moon
one of this days? would we see that explosion from Earth?

I'll have to recheck and see exactly what happened. Their intended
impact should have been within plain view, and having generated a
fairly impressive impact at that. At just one degree, it should have
bounced a few times, whereas instead it just kind of went thud and
sank out of sight.

The recent made for TV stuff isn't offering very good physics or
science, but it's certainly terrific eye-candy and what-if food for
thought.

An icy Selene becoming our moon could have sucker punched Eden/Earth
without destroying all life. If it happened today, perhaps at least
1% of the human species could be saved, and the lower 99% would likely
parish. However 12,600 some odd years ago, perhaps 10% of the
primitive humanity of that era should have survived because of their
having already survived in the nude and off the land as is.

Today, most folks might die off if they lost use of their cell phone,
Blackberry or iPod.

~ BG

On Jun 18, 6:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.

Won't you just claim that the pictures were doctored or faked when LRO
imagery DOES show Apollo landers on the moon?

On Jun 22, 11:39*am, Dave wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:

LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.

Won't you just claim that the pictures were doctored or faked when LRO
imagery DOES show Apollo landers on the moon?

I invented the science of observationology, of deductively
interpreting whatever's potentially there that's most likely
artificial as opposed to being of whatever should otherwise be
perfectly natural. Too bad that most of the higher resolution via
LORC imaging is limited to monochrome, whereas otherwise at least
eight fold better image interpretations could be accomplished.

The adding or subtracting of pixels per given image is nowadays 5th
grade capability, so thereby it's entirely possible to produce and/or
fudge whatever image you like, as well as including or excluding
whatever color/hue of the visual spectrum that makes you a happy
camper. Without public access to the original unprocessed images,
there's no valid objective way of anyone telling truth from fiction.
I wonder if the public is even going to see more than 0.1% of the
obtained science from these two probes, because in the past it hasn't
always been the case.

What could have been and should have been done as of our Apollo era,
that would have easily made everything objectively and independently
as peer proof-positive that we were in fact standing upon our
physically dark and unavoidably reactive moon, is a downright shame on
us. Perhaps only in America can so much of our best ever R&D plus 700
large boxes of mission data get so discarded and/or lost, as though it
had little if any meaning.

~ BG

On Jun 18, 4:28*pm, BradGuth wrote:
LRO is up and away. *Finally, absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not
detecting each and every significant Apollo item that’s bright and
shiny while situated upon such a naked surface that’s crystal dry,
electrostatic charged, generally reactive and nearly dark as coal.
The undisclosed dynamic range of their primary imager should knock our
socks off, whereas even earthshine illumination should be entirely
sufficient, as well as whatever desired color/hue saturation at less
resolution shouldn’t be a problem unless they intentionally assign
false colors.

At the altitude of 50 km (30–70 km polar orbit) it should offer 0.5
meter resolution. *Better resolution may have to remain restricted, as
well as other science data may have to be need-to-know (same as the
JAXA and ISRO missions).

Apparently the LRO/LCROSS missions are in some kind of media stealth
mode, similar to our media breath holding and turning blue, because
apparently there’s no sure thing of this spendy mission locating and
imaging our Apollo mission remainders of sufficiently large, bright
and shiny stuff that’s situated upon the nearly dark as coal surface
of our naked and dusty old moon.

JAXA and ISRO have not been certain of anything, and China is just
into keeping most everything of their lunar mission as a big dark
secret, although they each suspect via remote instruments that frozen
water could still exist on our naked and unavoidably reactive moon.
Oddly 99.9999% of their public funded mission science has been need-to-
know (meaning we get to see all of one bit out of a million), and of
what little has been published isn’t of their best data nor well
enough presented. It’s as though JAXA and ISRO simply do not know how
best to organize their public funded data and how to best utilize the
www as their public science archive.

However, our very own LRO and LCROSS missions of sufficient resolution
do not seem to be of any interest to those of Usenet/newsgroups
claiming we’ve been there and done that Apollo thing as of 40 years
ago.

The LROC of 0.5 meter resolution should more than do the trick,
especially with having such a wide spectrum capability for detecting
lunar minerals, deposits and with extreme dynamic range giving more
than enough earthshine illumination sensitivity for even the mostly
dark as coal surface without benefit of sunlight. Of whatever the
optical cameras of LRO do not pick up, the SAR imaging and multiple
other instruments will.

Even if there’s any scant amounts of solid water or even damp/frozen
crystals of mineral saturations hiding within deep and continually
dark polar craters shouldn’t go unnoticed, although at 3e-15 bar I’d
seriously have my doubts, in that anything resembling raw ice or
frozen brine is more likely going to have to be sequestered deep
within geode pockets as having solid (vapor tight) shells.

Too bad that after 4 decades of seeing our best hocus-pocus and
supposed technological advances, we still do not have any viable fly-
by-rocket lander that can safely manage a controlled decent, downrange
and soft landing. Instead we get yet another spendy impactor kind of
probe, and at that not even a LUNAR-A kind of surface penetration
probe, or any other capable kind of surviving hard landing probe.

~ BG