Apollo 17 Moon Sample Reveals Graphite Delivered by a Lunar Impactor

NEWS: Getting the Lead out: New Look at Apollo 17 Moon Sample Reveals
Graphite Delivered by a Lunar Impactor
Nearly 40 years after the last manned moon mission, NASA's Apollo
program is still producing new findings
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sc=DD_20100702

On Jul 2, 7:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
NEWS: Getting the Lead out: New Look at *Apollo 17 *Moon Sample Reveals
Graphite Delivered by a Lunar Impactor
Nearly 40 years after the last manned moon mission, NASA's Apollo
program is still producing new findingshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-graphite...

According to the forum's leading lunar scientist and all round racist
(Dark-as-Coal Selene, Sodium-cometary-wake, you wanna come up and see
my Venus etchings? Loadsa-Guff) these rocks do not exist.

Or were collected by Bollywood singers and dancers using remotely
controlled puppets on very long strings.

As this was prior to carbon whiskers, nano-tubes and other potentially
useful, high strength fibres one must assume he was talking out of his
arse. (as usual)

+Not that distinguished, sneerologist bARStEward Guff+

On Jul 2, 12:05*pm, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

NEWS: Getting the Lead out: New Look at *Apollo 17 *Moon Sample Reveals
Graphite Delivered by a Lunar Impactor
Nearly 40 years after the last manned moon mission, NASA's Apollo
program is still producing new findingshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-graphite...

According to the forum's leading lunar scientist and all round racist
(Dark-as-Coal Selene, Sodium-cometary-wake, you wanna come up and see
my Venus etchings? Loadsa-Guff) these rocks do not exist.

Or were collected by Bollywood singers and dancers using remotely
controlled puppets on very long strings.

As this was prior to carbon whiskers, nano-tubes and other potentially
useful, high strength fibres one must assume he was talking out of his
arse. (as usual)

+Not that distinguished, sneerologist bARStEward Guff+

You know better than that. No one want's to admit they've been
snookered.

~ BG

On Jul 2, 10:57*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
NEWS: Getting the Lead out: New Look at *Apollo 17 *Moon Sample Reveals
Graphite Delivered by a Lunar Impactor
Nearly 40 years after the last manned moon mission, NASA's Apollo
program is still producing new findingshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-graphite...

Doesn't our moon have every known element?

Here’s where we’re talking about obtaining a serious exoplanet image,
as well as 25 mm resolution of our physically dark but otherwise
unusually naked and thus unavoidably UV reactive mineral saturated
moon (meaning colorful), using the world’s largest single-piece
telescope mirror.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ed-100629.html
at 500 ly and the substantial exoplanet target diameter of perhaps
200,000 km (supposedly 1/6th that of it’s star) using up 10 pixels is
about as good as it gets. However, they could have easily masked off
their imager with a narrow bandpass hydrogen filter and given us some
photosphere details, rather than such a ungodly blob of over-saturated
pixels, or simply kept those pixels of that star unloaded or
suppressed for as long as it takes while they record that seriously
massive exoplanet of 8 Mj.

This Gemini Observatory resolution actually comes out to a resolution
of our moon at roughly 10 mm/pixel, but I rounded that up to the inch
or 25.4 mm/pixel just to be on the conservative side. Plus there’s a
multitude of other benefits for imaging details of our physically dark
moon that has such collections of UV reactive minerals to record
(hardly anything monochromatic or in need of false coloring)
http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/..._MoonColor.jpg
http://www.astrosurf.com/re/moon_20080322_RCOS10.jpg

This one is not actually false colored, so much as it is merely having
extremely boosted those actual color saturations as triggered by the
visible and those unavoidable UV spectrums of secondary/recoil
photons.
http://www.solarviews.com/browse/moon/moonfls1.jpg

As you can see for yourself that various independent methods
essentially came up with the same colorful results without their
having to artificially color anything..
http://www.rc-astro.com/photo/id1018.html

Each color or hue represents a specific type of element or mineral,
plus according to some there’s even loads of raw ice that’s hidden in
polar craters, plus otherwise 33 teratonnes of water (~50150 ppm)
trapped within that sucker, as well as there should be geode pockets
of mineral saturated brines, so at least technically our moon isn’t w/
o water. Too bad we still can't go there.

Is there really any mineral or raw element that our moon/Selene
doesn’t have?

Because geologically created hydrocarbons are not of fossils or having
any other basis of DNA origins as limited to a thriving biodiversity
demise, Venus and even our moon could have such hydrocarbons to burn,
so to speak.

~ BG

Question of the day; Is the Gemini Observatory farsighted?
(apparently most public funded observatories are extremely farsighted,
and it seems there are very few observatories without some form of
public funding, same as cash tax credits or other direct benefits).
Perhaps that’s why our moon is always mainstream depicted as a
monochromatic inert item of little if any value.