Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins wrote:

I can remain silent no longer. Here with the above quoted evidence I
would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. The complaint is as
follows: Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. It
should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.

Robert Collins

Our moon(Selene) should be worth trilions per year to anyone that can
deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats (such as easily
being nailed by a meteor that's also attracted to the gravity and
electrostatic charge of Selene), not to mention what that downright
nifty zero delta-V of its L1 has to offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission still can't manage to accomplish what an Earth
based astronomy class of retail digital color imaging can (in spite of
being on average 385,350 km further away and having our polluted
atmosphere in the way) by Filipe Alves, including the nice job of
picking up those UV secondary/recoil fluorescent forced colors of our
physically dark lunar surface minerals, that by rights from the LRO
crystal clear and low orbit of 50 km should have been at the very
least ten fold better at such color saturations.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent colors of
that naked surface should have been telling us, as of four decades ago
as to what's even a whole lot better inside. Imagine what a properly
configured 10 meter KECK could have managed, and especially while
masked down to the smaller pinhole aperture for greatly increased
resolution from its 395 meter focal length.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

However, I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of fused
basalt crust might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in
more than enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness = 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be heavy element saturated basalts worth as great as
3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and radium among
other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements, whereas on the
other end of this spectrum is h2o and 3He that should bring some of
that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm thinking that
lunar core is worth 45e21 kg and subsequently keeping itself small
and significantly offset towards us in order to compensate for the
much thicker farside crust, as well as pulling that in-between filling
densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3 and/or leaving voids as somewhat geode
pockets.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust lunar crust of mostly paramagnetic basalt
that's representing 6.25 fold greater mass than whatever the wussy
little iron core has to offer, whereas if the between filler were
given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't hardly limited as to
compacted basalt, but of something less dense or at least porous
enough to allow for such a low average density to coexist at such
internal depths and subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to
offer.

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

On Jan 18, 12:15 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 04:11:06PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins wrote:
As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
expect their response at any moment.

Robert Collins

Wow! nice blocks of well crafted word salad, that unfortunately has
nothing whatsoever to do with our semi-hollow or porous moon(Selene).
However, for fun I'll eventually read through parts of it so as to
insure that you get full credit.

Do not compound your crime with yet more baseless accusations. Usenet
Control will examine the record or relevant posts very carefully, in
particular, messages after the fact are sometimes the most revealing.
Interesting transference you got going there.


At least my honest speculations are those based upon interpreting the
best available science, plus as always sticking within those pesky
regular laws of physics.

I sure hope that "Usenet Control" has nothing better to do, than to
follow up your request to terminate anyone having any deductive
formulated mindset, such as mine.

Well, no. Usenet Control would if necessary contact the Galactic Patrol
if they thought there was a serious issue of that sort. I hope you
aren't thinking of messing with the Galactic Patrol; they have no
sense of humor.
Good news, seans (aka Usenet control) are Republicans.


In the mean time, perhaps you can tell us why that unusual moon isn't
the least bit hollow or otherwise sufficiently porous within or under
that thick crust.

Otherwise, I'd like us to collaborate as to exactly what that 7.35e22
kg captured asteroid/moon(Selene) has to offer, including it's L1
usage that Clarke, Boeing and a few others thought was extremely
nifty, as did I for accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS.

A Collaborator collaborator? But anyways, as I said I was not really
interested in the moon.
Get yourself interested, if not in our moon, then at least do Venus,
as otherwise you have no business in this topic or most any other
topic that I publish.


Venus is another issue that's hardly insurmountable, at least by most
any 5th grader or older person that isn't brainwashed to whatever
status quo standards that you seem to approve of.

Do you have a better plan of action (besides extensive use of blinders
and ear plugs) that we should follow?

Ear plugs?

Robert Collins

So, what's not to like about our moon or Venus?

Our NASA/Apollo thinks it's rather colorless (as in monochrome light/
pastel gray), and supposedly it's passive and otherwise entirely inert
(as in safer than some places right here on Earth) and not even the
least bit UV reactive.

How about: The moon is ours (sort of) / Brad Guth

Our moon(Selene) should become worth trillions per year to anyone that
can deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats (such as easily
being nailed by a passing or imacting meteor that's unavoidably
attracted to the gravity and electrostatic charge of Selene), not to
mention whatever that downright nifty Zero Delta-V of its L1 has to
offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission still can't manage to accomplish what an Earth
based astronomy class of retail digital color imaging and modest
telescope can (in spite of being on average 385,350 km further away
and having our polluted atmosphere in the way) as accomplished by
Filipe Alves, including the nice job of picking up those UV secondary/
recoil fluorescent forced colors of our otherwise physically dark
lunar surface of mostly basalt and various minerals, that by rights
from the LRO crystal clear and low orbit of 50 km should have been at
the very least ten fold better at such color/hue saturations.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those perfectly natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent
colors of that naked surface that's saturated in raw minerals, should
have been telling us lots as of four decades ago as to what's even a
whole lot better inside. Imagine what a properly configured 10 meter
KECK could have managed, and especially while masked down to the
smaller pinhole aperture for greatly increased resolution from its 395
meter focal length potential, and of course our spendy LRO mission
should be at the very least ten fold better yet.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

However, I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of fused
basalt crust might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in
more than enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness ~ 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be much heavier element saturated basalts worth as
great as 3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and
radium among other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements,
whereas on the other end of this spectrum is h2o and 3He that should
bring some of that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm
thinking that lunar core is worth 45e21 kg and subsequently keeping
itself small and significantly offset towards us in order to
compensate for the much thicker farside crust, as well as pulling that
in-between filling densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3 and/or leaving voids
as somewhat geode pockets.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust and substantially fused lunar crust of
mostly paramagnetic basalt that's representing 6.25 fold greater mass
than whatever the wussy little iron core has to offer, whereas if the
in-between filler were given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't
hardly limited as to compacted basalt (Earth magma worth 3.5 g/cm3),
but more than likely of something less dense or at least porous or
hollow enough to allow for such a low average density to coexist at
such depths and subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to offer,
which can't be insignificant.

In other words, our trusty moon(Selene) is ripe for picking, and it's
always extremely nearby. So what's with all this exoplanet hunting
and public funded hype that offers no conceivable hope whatsoever from
anything outside the reach of our moon and perhaps the planet Venus,
that are each mainstream treated as though need-to-know or taboo/
nondisclosure rated to boot?

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

~ BG