Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


Well... no, actually that's not quite what it means, but at least
I know what you mean; you mean the moon reflects comparatively
little light, and venus comparatively more. Thanks.

Venus is nearly 8 fold more visually reflective than our moon (it's
especially a whole lot more reflective yet if going for those near-UV
and UV-a spectrums, of which our moon is really ****-poor at reflecting
such spectrums, and Venus gets 2600+ w/m2 to work with, as opposed to
1350 w/m2 that hits our physically dark moon).

To the unfiltered Kodak eye (as well as external to our atmosphere),
that vibrant orb of Venus is actually a seriously bright little item,
although so is the Sirius star/solar system.

If your camera and film is so pathetic that you can't manage to have
easily recorded Venus, then you can't otherwise have recorded that
physically dark lunar surface.
-
Brad Guth


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

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

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

Sorry, I have absolutely no honest idea as to how such folks ever walked
on our moon and lived as 100% unscaved as to telling us about it.

First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander, therefore
just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works
of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to
exist, and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well.

What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion
Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_,
which is where it was originally tested!

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.

The easiest explanation, given the differences between what was said on
the sites you referenced and what you claimed, is that you've confused
your units of radiation. And no, I'm _not_ going to ignore the data
gathered by the only organization that ever carried out Lunar landings
-- that would be insane.

- Jordan

Wayne Throop wrote:
:: How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
:: anything at all from NASA?

: "Brad Guth"
: Already been there and done that. Where the heck have you folks been
: all of these years?

How about just one claim that struck my curiosity.
You recently mentioned that "the moon is dark". How do you establish
that, since I can look up in the sky and see that it is not dark. Indeed,
to photograph the moon from here, and see any of its features, I found I
needed to use basic daylight exposure. F16 at one over the film speed,
more or less approximately.

So, what you mean "dark", kemosabe? How dark, how do you know,
and why didn't my camera know? I'm pretty sure NASA
hasn't been jiggering the settings on my camera.

Indeed, that struck me as rather odd too, since the Apollo missions all
landed in daylight, Luna orbits the Sun at the same distance that the
Earth does (*), and Luna actually has a rather high albedo by the
standards of airless bodies.

I also wonder how NASA spoofed the folks in Australia that picked up the
transmissions from the moon directly. I saw interviews with actual people
from the radio telescope. Hm... no, nevermind that one; doubtless NASA
just chased them all down and bribed them, or replaced them with pod
people or something; there were only a few people actually working at
the telescope personally. But I do still wonder why I should not believe
the evidence of my own eyes.

So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon?

- Jordan

(*) Technically speaking, Luna does not primarily orbit the Earth; Luna
and the Earth both primarily orbit the Sun in a braided orbit, as a
double planet.

- Jordan

Brad Guth wrote:
"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


Well... no, actually that's not quite what it means, but at least
I know what you mean; you mean the moon reflects comparatively
little light, and venus comparatively more. Thanks.

Venus is nearly 8 fold more visually reflective than our moon (it's
especially a whole lot more reflective yet if going for those near-UV
and UV-a spectrums, of which our moon is really ****-poor at reflecting
such spectrums, and Venus gets 2600+ w/m2 to work with, as opposed to
1350 w/m2 that hits our physically dark moon).

To the unfiltered Kodak eye (as well as external to our atmosphere),
that vibrant orb of Venus is actually a seriously bright little item,
although so is the Sirius star/solar system.

Venus is both closer to the Sun and has a higher albedo (reflectivity)
than does Luna. Earth has a higher albedo than Luna. However, Luna is
certainly bright enough to allow its surface to be seen by the pilot of
a LEM, as the photographs taken from the LEM's clearly indicate.

For that matter, even if it weren't, there are a number of obvious
solutions to the problem of landing a spacecraft under poor lighting
conditions, ranging from radars to starlight scopes to simply mounting
floodlights on the spacecraft. So I don't see what you're going on
about.

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:

What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion
Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_,
which is where it was originally tested!

No, the LEM was not flown on Earth. It was flown in Earth orbit, but
not on Earth.

What you're probably thinking of was the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle,
which was created to help train the astronauts to land the LEM on the
Moon. But it was not the LEM.

Mind you, Brad Guth is still bat****, but not for that reason.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
I like young girls. Their stories are shorter.
-- Thomas McGuane

Erik Max Francis wrote:
Jordan wrote:

What are you talking about? They landed using the Lunar Excursion
Module, which had an engine powerful enough to let it fly _on Earth_,
which is where it was originally tested!

No, the LEM was not flown on Earth. It was flown in Earth orbit, but
not on Earth.

What you're probably thinking of was the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle,
which was created to help train the astronauts to land the LEM on the
Moon. But it was not the LEM.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful
engine but analogous control systems then?

- Jordan

Jordan wrote:

Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful
engine but analogous control systems then?

Similar in the sense of attitude control, yes. It maintained the proper
attitude while they could maneuver it around, the same way that the LEM
would.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Performing in front of a live audience is like a feeling of shock.
-- Sade Adu

In article om,
Jordan wrote:

Oh, ok, I didn't realize that. Did the LLRV have a more powerful
engine but analogous control systems then?

Sort of: It had a gimballed jet engine which lifted 5/6 of
the vehicle, in simulation mode always oriented vertically (but
it could lift all of it). This way reduced gravity was
simulated with its pair of (no place for a single) rocket
engines giving the same vertical rates as on the moon.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com...



So wait, Brad is actually claiming that nobody ever landed on the Moon?

Among other things, yes.



- Jordan

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:47:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark L.
Fergerson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.

Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA.

How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
anything at all from NASA?

Brad is nuts. Please don't encourage him. Just killfile him.

Yes, I know; I was just making sure he'd reject a reality check.


Mark L. Fergerson