LRO; Apollo impacts and their debris soon to be identified

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).

*~ BG

It's certainly looking better and better as the LRO gets into its
final mapping position for obtaining those 0.5 m/pixel resolution
images.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html

However, the original images from our Apollo archives don’t seem add
up to what the LROC is currently imaging. Perhaps the moon geology as
well as its unusually thin and highly reflective dust covering that’s
crystal dry and having otherwise offered terrific surface tension and
thereby so nicely clumping, plus that of it’s otherwise unusually
light guano kind of grayish basalt and otherwise naked mineralogy has
changed (possibly another weird affect of global warming or somehow
getting bleached out by the sun, because Mount St. Helens ash was
actually of a darker gray)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...ic/mission/?16
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...mm/mission/?16

The 200+ combined metric mapping orbits of course unavoidably covered
their landing sights each time around, so there should be some
extremely good examples at a low enough solar angle for a direct
overlay or stacked composite of more than sufficient dynamic range
that’ll match perfectly for at least each of those three (A15, A16 and
A17) missions. At the time our USAF spy/reconnaissance imaging
cameras could have accomplished at the very least ten fold better
resolution at less than 10% the cost of an Apollo mission, but
obviously that never happened.

For some typically slow and spendy reasons, the digital rescan of the
original image archive is going to take at least another two years,
because apparently they can’t just do any specified dozen as related
to any one of those original landing sites, much less of scanning a
few of those terrific Metric Mapping frames. Apparently it’s all or
nothing.

http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/...digitally.html
Old Apollo stuff: “Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture
the full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this kind of digital scan forensics as of nearly 4
decades ago, or even as of one decade ago would have been rather nice,
and even if applied only on behalf of a dozen or so selected/specified
images.

The newest stuff of superior dynamic range(DR) via their KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (whereas film and the typical lens
offers roughly a little better than 10 db to work with, and possibly
11 db on behalf of their large format terrain mapping, making the
dynamic range of this LROC 54 db better than film), and a good digital
scan of that old film might pull out as much as another db, making
that film worth 12 db, though possibly 13 db but not likely 14 db as
suggested, perhaps because as far as anyone objectively knows there is
none of the original Apollo film to work from.

LRO imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lea...pm/Vondrak.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...uctSummary.pdf

LROC / terrific monochrome images that apparently our local NASA and
those wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with
us. Within this month there will be another 575 orbits of various
observationology levels by which to interpret from.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As NASA and ASU gets our spendy LRO fully established within its 50 km
circular orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen
up considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images, along with loads of secondary fluorescence data
that’ll begin telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of
a given element is exposed. After all, our Selene/moon is only
physically dark at the average albedo of slightly better than coal,
but otherwise it’s not going to be a passive monochromatic geology
environment, nor is it entirely nonreactive to the UV spectrum as
suggested by most of the original and unfiltered Apollo obtained
images.

In these initial LOR monochrome images we simply need to know how much
of the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass
spectrums are being utilized or intentionally excluded. In other
words, LROC and of its other cameras are actually performing as our
highly advanced visual spectrometer, and even though the full color
spectrum of 400 to 750 nm (12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded
within 7 specific channels worth, however, thus far we are only
getting to see their results in monochrome. There’s also a UV camera
that’ll further extend this color and secondary fluorescence spectrum,
although of less resolution and false color to us because the human
eye simply doesn’t record direct UV, nor do most of us correctly
process those secondary/recoil photons for whatever they truly
represent.

The LRO Sandia mini-SAR radar imaging should be capable of somewhat
less than a tenth as good of resolution (25 m/pixel, easily resampled
5 m/pixel), but otherwise far better pixel truth worthy data because
of the number of radar confirming looks per pixel, as well as nothing
of solar illumination, secondary IR, UV fluorescence or any of their
pesky shadows to contend with. In other words, SAR imaging is just
the soft to hard and mineralogy facts of whatever that dusty old
surface and its depth of a crystal dry and electrostatic charged
composite has to offer.

IR imaging is just more of the same technical extension of deductive
observational science, via the thermal reflectance and secondary
spectral emissivity data that’s telling us how much extra secondary/
recoil reflectance worthy and otherwise IR emissivity hot the moon is,
even in the shade. In other words, an RTG would have to be operating
extremely hot, as such its artificial thermal area of measurably
warming at least 100 m2 should rather easily stand out from all the
natural surroundings (especially in earthshine or total nighttime).
Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jul 19, 8:28*am, BradGuth wrote:
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).

*~ BG

It's certainly looking better and better as the LRO gets into its
final mapping position for obtaining those 0.5 m/pixel resolution
images.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ges/apollosite...

*However, the original images from our Apollo archives don’t seem add
up to what the LROC is currently imaging. *Perhaps the moon geology as
well as its unusually thin and highly reflective dust covering that’s
crystal dry and having otherwise offered terrific surface tension and
thereby so nicely clumping, plus that of it’s otherwise unusually
light guano kind of grayish basalt and otherwise naked mineralogy has
changed (possibly another weird affect of global warming or somehow
getting bleached out by the sun, because Mount St. Helens ash was
actually of a darker gray)
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...ic/mission/?16
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/ap...mm/mission/?16

The 200+ combined metric mapping orbits of course unavoidably covered
their landing sights each time around, so there should be some
extremely good examples at a low enough solar angle for a direct
overlay or stacked composite of more than sufficient dynamic range
that’ll match perfectly for at least each of those three (A15, A16 and
A17) missions. *At the time our USAF spy/reconnaissance imaging
cameras could have accomplished at the very least ten fold better
resolution at less than 10% the cost of an Apollo mission, but
obviously that never happened.

For some typically slow and spendy reasons, the digital rescan of the
original image archive is going to take at least another two years,
because apparently they can’t just do any specified dozen as related
to any one of those original landing sites, much less of scanning a
few of those terrific Metric Mapping frames. *Apparently it’s all or
nothing.

http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/...digitally.html
*Old Apollo stuff: *“Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture
the full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this kind of digital scan forensics as of nearly 4
decades ago, or even as of one decade ago would have been rather nice,
and even if applied only on behalf of a dozen or so selected/specified
images.

The newest stuff of superior dynamic range(DR) via their KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (whereas film and the typical lens
offers roughly a little better than 10 db to work with, and possibly
11 db on behalf of their large format terrain mapping, making the
dynamic range of this LROC 54 db better than film), and a good digital
scan of that old film might pull out as much as another db, making
that film worth 12 db, though possibly 13 db but not likely 14 db as
suggested, perhaps because as far as anyone objectively knows there is
none of the original Apollo film to work from.

LRO imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lea...tions/oct28pm/....
*http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/.../ISS/productsu....

LROC / terrific monochrome images that apparently our local NASA and
those wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with
us. *Within this month there will be another 575 orbits of various
observationology levels by which to interpret from.
*http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As NASA and ASU gets our spendy LRO fully established within its 50 km
circular orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen
up considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images, along with loads of secondary fluorescence data
that’ll begin telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of
a given element is exposed. *After all, our Selene/moon is only
physically dark at the average albedo of slightly better than coal,
but otherwise it’s not going to be a passive monochromatic geology
environment, nor is it entirely nonreactive to the UV spectrum as
suggested by most of the original and unfiltered Apollo obtained
images.

In these initial LOR monochrome images we simply need to know how much
of the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass
spectrums are being utilized or intentionally excluded. *In other
words, LROC and of its other cameras are actually performing as our
highly advanced visual spectrometer, and even though the full color
spectrum of 400 to 750 nm (12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded
within 7 specific channels worth, however, thus far we are only
getting to see their results in monochrome. *There’s also a UV camera
that’ll further extend this color and secondary fluorescence spectrum,
although of less resolution and false color to us because the human
eye simply doesn’t record direct UV, nor do most of us correctly
process those secondary/recoil photons for whatever they truly
represent.

The LRO Sandia mini-SAR radar imaging should be capable of somewhat
less than a tenth as good of resolution (25 m/pixel, easily resampled5 m/pixel), but otherwise far better pixel truth worthy data because

of the number of radar confirming looks per pixel, as well as nothing
of solar illumination, secondary IR, UV fluorescence or any of their
pesky shadows to contend with. *In other words, SAR imaging is just
the soft to hard and mineralogy facts of whatever that dusty old
surface and its depth of a crystal dry and electrostatic charged
composite has to offer.

IR imaging is just more of the same technical extension of deductive
observational science, via the thermal reflectance and secondary
spectral emissivity data that’s telling us how much extra secondary/
recoil reflectance worthy and otherwise IR emissivity hot the moon is,
even in the shade. *In other words, an RTG would have to be operating
extremely hot, as such its artificial thermal area of measurably
warming at least 100 m2 should rather easily stand out from all the
natural surroundings (especially in earthshine or total nighttime).
Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

*~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Good freaking grief, now my kosher shadow (aka Usenet stalker) is
going postal against Warhol, though only within "alt.astronomy".

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”

On Jul 12, 10:28*am, BradGuth wrote:
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 or exclude certain channels or color/hue saturation.

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 remain as need-to-know (same
as the JAXA and ISRO missions).

What’s new http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse, and otherwise of
what’s old is a whole lot better late than never; at least of images
robotically obtained from the Apollo era of numerous lunar orbits are
finally getting their badly needed digital scans, to be compared with
the LRO images of the exact same terrain in order to see what if
anything has changed in 40 years.

http://researchstories.asu.edu/2007/...digitally.html
*Old Apollo stuff: *“Color images will use 48-bit pixels to capture
the full dynamic range of the film. Robinson says that combining high
resolution and wide brightness range produces very large raw image
files.”

“The project will take about three years to complete. Technicians will
scan some 36,000 images. These include about 600 frames in 35 mm.
There are also almost 20,000 Hasselblad 60 mm frames (color, and black
and white), more than 10,000 mapping camera frames, and about 4,600
panoramic camera frames.”

“To extract all the details from the film, Robinson decided to scan
the black and white images at a resolution of 200 pixels per
millimeter. That is far beyond what most scanning involves. Color
images are at 100 or 120 pixels per millimeter.”

"We're going well past the film grain," White says.
“The scanner was built by Leica Geosystems. Its software was specially
modified for the project to increase the brightness range from the
normal 12-bit tone depth to 14 bits. This means black and white images
record more than 16,000 shades of gray. Color images will use 48-bit
pixels to capture the full dynamic range of the film.”

We certainly needed this digital scan forensics as of nearly 4 decades
ago, or even as of one decade ago would have been nice, even if
applied only on behalf of a dozen or so images.

The newest stuff of superior dynamic range(DR) via their KLI-5001G
image detector is worth 66 db (whereas film and the typical lens
offers roughly 10 db to work with, and possibly 11 db on their large
format terrain mapping, making the dynamic range of this LROC 55 db
better than film), and a good digital scan of that old film might pull
out as much as another db, making that film worth 12 db, though
possibly 13 db but not likely 14 db as suggested, perhaps because as
far as we now there is no original Apollo film to work from.

LRO imager ADC9225 is an eight-channel by 12 bit/digit ADC (96 bit)
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lea...tions/oct28pm/....
*http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/.../ISS/productsu....

LROC / terrific monochrome images that apparently our local NASA and
those wizards of Google Usenet/newsgroups doesn’t want to share with
us. *Within this month there will be another 575 orbits of various
observationology levels by which to interpret from.
*http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As NASA and ASU gets our spendy LRO fully established in its 50 km
circular orbit, all things of terrific observationology should sharpen
up considerably, as well as offering color/hue composites of crisp
digital images and loads of secondary fluorescence data that’ll begin
telling us what kinds and to some extent of how much of a given
element is exposed. *After all, our Selene/moon is only physically
dark but otherwise not a passive monochromatic geology environment,
nor is it nonreactive to the UV spectrum as suggested by most of the
Apollo obtained images.

In these initial monochrome images we simply need to know how much of
the overall spectrum and/or which of the 7 narrow bandpass spectrums
are being utilized or intentionally excluded. *In other words, LROC
and of its other cameras are actually performing as a visual
spectrometer, and even though the full color spectrum of 400 to 750 nm
(12 bit DR/channel) is getting recorded within 7 specific channels
worth, however, thus far we only get to see their results in
monochrome. *There’s also a UV camera that’ll further extend their
color and secondary fluorescence spectrum, although of less resolution
and false color to us because the human eye simply doesn’t record
direct UV, nor do most of us correctly process those secondary/recoil
photons for whatever they truly represent.

The LRO Sandia mini-SAR radar imaging should be capable of somewhat
less than a tenth as good of resolution (25 m/pixel, resampled 5 m/
pixel), but otherwise far better pixel truth worthy data because of
the number of radar confirming looks per pixel, as well as nothing of
solar illumination, secondary IR, UV fluorescence or any of their
pesky shadows to contend with. *In other words, just the soft to hard
and mineralogy facts of what that dusty old surface and its depth of
crystal dry dust has to offer.

IR imaging is just more of the same technical extension of
observational science, via spectral data that’s telling us how much
extra secondary/recoil reflectance and otherwise IR emissivity hot the
moon is, even in the shade.
Diviner Lunar Radiometer:
*http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2009/pdf/2255.pdf

*~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”


ASTRONOMY September 2009 (Vol. 37 Issue 9), page 39

Why is it that we keep getting these intentionally pastel images, of
such limited DR(dynamic range), in that my old cell-phone camera has
better DR and even better color/hue range including purple and violet
sensitivity?

It seems LROC has even worse DR.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

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).

ASTRONOMY September 2009 (Vol. 37 Issue 9), page 39
Why is it that we keep getting these intentionally pastel images, of
such limited DR(dynamic range), in that my old cell-phone camera has
better DR and even better color/hue range, including purple and violet
sensitivity?

It seems LROC has even worse DR, and where exactly are those color/hue
saturated images of the mineral fluorescence and those of SAR, X-ray
plus gamma spectrometry of our physically dark Selene/moon?

When are we ever going to start getting our public funded moneys
worth?

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Aug 5, 10:25*am, BradGuth wrote:
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).

ASTRONOMY *September 2009 (Vol. 37 Issue 9), page 39
*Why is it that we keep getting these intentionally pastel images, of
such limited DR(dynamic range), in that my old cell-phone camera has
better DR and even better color/hue range, including purple and violet
sensitivity?

It seems LROC has even worse DR, and where exactly are those color/hue
saturated images of the mineral fluorescence and those of SAR, X-ray
plus gamma spectrometry of our physically dark Selene/moon?

When are we ever going to start getting our public funded moneys
worth?

So, thus far we get to see 0.1% of the LRO science, and even that much
isn’t offering the entire spectrum or dynamic range. Perhaps the
saturation of lunar sodium, its naked environment of solar wind and
electrostatic charged dust, loads of double IR and X-rays by day plus
always gamma is too much for the LRO mission to deal with.

Speaking about moon and planet anomalies (including weird monoliths)
that could somehow benefit us in more ways than just nifty eyecandy.
The “Stepping Stone To Mars” article by James Oberg in DISCOVER
magazine is as good as any, suggesting how a low delta-V is always a
good thing, though better yet if the objective planet or moon offered
an atmosphere, and of course better yet if there’s already an
available tarmac and adjoining township or ET outpost (such as on
Venus).

Contributed from our nearly robo infomercial spewing Pat Flannery:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...f-of-life.html
Monolith on Phobos also?
Buzz thinks so.
Here's a photo of it:
http://palermoproject.com/Mars_Anoma...nomalies1.html
... bit round for a monolith. Looks more like a rock that was in the
same orbit as Phobos and settled onto its surface.
But nope, it is a monolith:
http://palermoproject.com/Mars_Anoma...nomalies2.html
It's crap like this that makes you really appreciate Neal Armstrong
keeping his mouth shut, unlike the Buzzer.

His closing qualifier of “crap like this” says it all about the
bipolar mindset of our Pat Flannery.

-

Phobos, the odd little captured and thoroughly pulverized moon of Mars
that’s of such low average density and yet “nearly dark as coal” (at
roughly an albedo of 7% is just a reflective/albedo rating of being 4%
less reflective than our much odder Selene/noon at 11%). Depending on
illumination angle, surface coarseness or nearly soot like dusty
crystallization and of course water and various mineral composition,
terrestrial coal offers a visual reflectance range of 0.05 to 0.15
(5%15%), excluding whatever a polarized filter can contribute towards
surface darkening. Also, it seems with the terrific dynamic range of
the modern CCD camera can offer the deductive eyecandy of mineral
fluorescence, of which our physically dark moon has even more of such
complex minerals and collected deposits to offer. However, add in the
near 50 story item of a vertical rectangular anomaly that’s nicely
parked on Phobos (possibly deployed from that extremely long and
narrow ET probe that the Russian Phobos-II mission encountered), and
you got yourself a very interesting rock of an extremely dusty and
otherwise low density substance of darn little gravity (minimal to/
from delta-V).

Of course our 1%10% semi-hollow Selene/moon is so much way better
yet, and the Selene L1 (accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS) offers an ideal
to/from delta-V of zero. The same applies for my logistically cool
POOF City at Venus L2 that offers yet another near zero delta-V for
accommodating our Venus Gateway/Oasis and/or interplanetary staging
depot..

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”