ETs arrive, cloaked as red rain

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat wrote:
I do get "unsubstantiated feeling(s)" from time to time. Those
'feelings' served me well on military missions when I came back, while
others didn't. They are a little like the 'feelings' that Jedi Knights
are rumored to have. You have to 'feel' the force. Be 'one' with the
force. Become the force.

That and blast the hell out of the enemy when you 'feel' it is the
thing to do.

Again, however, the LM panels used paint containing promethium.
Promethium-147, having a half-life of only 2 1/2 years, is highly
radioactive. Unshielded at close range, the beta particles are
significant. With even minor shielding -- aluminized fabric or a thin
layer of clear acrylic -- they are not.

Thank for the info. But I am still suspicious that this 'radio
luminescene' has something to do with stopping radiation too. Why
gigantic panels when a couple of small ones would do just as well?

Since you have absolutely no honest intentions nor expertise to offer
as to anything that's topic constructive, in which case why don't you
go play with your prototype spaceplane?

Such prototypes are actually not only as small as you'd like, and thus
humanly manageable, but very doable as offering proof of their
potential capability in full scale.

Besides fully interactive 3D software that can accomplish damn near
anything, it's rather simple as to keeping your prototype GLOW down to
a dull roar in order to suit whatever the demonstration, by way of
simply limiting fuel loads and excluding payloads.

How about doing a 1/100 scale static prototype version for wind-tunnel
testing?
How about your doing a 1/10 scale flyable prototype, with 'tomcat' at
the controls?
-
Brad Guth




Wasn't 13 rads per hour about what you said Astronauts would have to
deal with in Outer Space? Strange the two figures match. I wonder if
maybe Promethium changes hard radiation into soft radiation?

Quite a trick if they can do it.



tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Wasn't 13 rads per hour about what you said Astronauts would have to
deal with in Outer Space? Strange the two figures match. I wonder if
maybe Promethium changes hard radiation into soft radiation?

Quite a trick if they can do it.

No, I didn't say anything close to 13 rads/hr, at least not by way of
space travels external to the magnetosphere, whereas if the moon is not
evolved and you're headed away from our sun, it should be much less
than that amount of dosage unless your butt is getting nailed by a bad
solar/cosmic event, in which case it really doesn't matter how low the
average dosage level is because, from a singular bad event you are
either dead or soon going to become dead unless you've got one hell of
a massive spacecraft protecting your frail DNA. Having an extremely
well shielded cash of your sub-frozen bone marrow and a few of those
spare stem-cells available might save the day, whereas otherwise don't
plan upon coming home unless you're in a body-bag.

I had actually said many times that the Van Allen belt environment that
can offer an average of 23 rads/hr while shielded by 2g/cm2 (roughly
5/16" worth of 5086 aluminum) is derived from a sufficiently
hard-science matter of fact, and as such is less TBI worthy than being
situated on the gamma and hard-X-ray moon of ours while using that same
2 g/cm2 worth of shielding, and that's only recently become a matter of
scientific fact because our moon having been recorded as being much
worse off than what the well known bad parts of our Van Allen expanse
has to offer. Therefore, I wouldn't expect a moonsuit dosage of
anything less than 50 rads/hr if it's a relatively passive solar day,
and otherwise we're talking several hundreds of rads/hr if it's a
somewhat more active solar day, with a truly bad solar day offering
several thousands of rads/hr that have frequently gone entirely off
scale upon having saturated the various detection instruments we've got
situated external to our magnetosphere's Van Allen expanse. However,
if our sun goes into a nearly passive mode is also when the most lethal
dosage of cosmic influx gets through. So, if you are out and about as
moonsuit walking on that physically dark and nasty moon of ours, you
are sort of in a no-win situation, especially getting double-IR and
unavoidably gamma plus extra X-ray TBI dosage worthy by day.

While on the moon, unless you're situated within a very small diameter
but otherwise deep crater, you're unavoidably surrounded by at least a
km radius of absolutely nasty badlands, therefore count on 3.14e6 m2
worth of whatever's locally radioactive and otherwise being unavoidably
reactive to the cosmic and solar influx as being of contributing
factors to the demise of your frail DNA. Since there's supposedly such
a slight amount of surface atmosphere to work with, that's regardless
still unfortunately capable of being nicely reactive (especially
reactive if there's heavy elements such a Rn222 are available), and
thereby affording hardly any measurable attenuation of whatever is
coming off each and every square meter of that naked moon, whereas such
each m2 doesn't actually have to represent all that much individual
gamma and hard-X-ray dosage. A few local millirads/m2/hr times 3.14e6
and your DNA is going to be seriously fried from all directions, as
well as from the inside out as that local and whatever influx gamma
interacts with the bone and bone marrow of your own body. And, since
it's of an environment that's no longer representing itself as a given
point source of radiation, but that of a surrounding terrain of
radioactive and otherwise unavoidably reactive badlands, as such
there's nothing much you can do to save your soul, other than getting
the hell out of there as soon as possible or going deep underground,
because it's simply not practical much less affordable or even
technically as of yet doable to deliver a necessary amount of suitable
shield material to that moon of ours, that is without such an effort
creating yet another delivery impact crater.

Of course, if we had your efficient VTOL spaceplane with it's million
pound payload capability, as such we could obviously go to/from that
nasty sucker as often and as quickly as perhaps within 7 day round
trips, spending as little as an hour on the earthshine illuminated deck
where the local reactive environment is getting least impacted by the
solar influx. Of course, just having to nearby orbit that moon of ours
in simply not going to represent a safe margin of crew and passender
error or any measurable attenuation factor from being fully exposed to
the lunar surface that's radioactive as well as remaining unavoidably
reactive for as far as your spaceplane can see, whereas we are talking
about a 600 km or better radius, of at least 1.13e12 m2 of exposure
that the extremely large but otherwise relatively low density
spaceplane of your's has to contend with. Thus how much shield mass
and/or volume of whatever's similar to water are you planning upon
having for benefiting that of your crew and passenders, or is death
their only viable option?

BTW; one form of radiation does not stop or even attenuate that of
another form of radiation, it just makes the situation worse off from
whatever interactions are taking place. One hell of an artificial
magnetosphere might however achieve the goal of defending yourself from
the ravages of essentially DNA toxic radiation.
-
Brad Guth

tomcat wrote:
Fact: NASA did something to stop radiation. The does the Astronauts
received on their Moon Missions were well within tolerable limits.

Fact: To put a man on the Moon by the end of the 60's was a top
national priority. Classified capability may have been used.

Fact: 13 rads per hour of 'radio luminescent paint' is a little on the
heavy side.

Possible explanation: The 'radio luminescent paint' may have converted
the hard Outer Space radiation into soft 'radio luminescent paint'
radiation, then blocked with acrylic.

Sometimes scientists find things that work that don't come with BOX
theories backing them up. But if they work, then they work!
Fact: some folks are so absolutely snookered and summarily dumbfounded
that they believed in WMD and in anything else coming from the LLPOF
infomercial butt-cheeks of the one they love, while others having
managed to get their partners in crimes against humanity at the time to
put one of their own jewboys on a stick. And once again, here's our
warm and fuzzy 'tomcat' proving that I'm right as rain.

As per the Usenet status quo that continually sucks and blows as usual,
I see absolutely nothing but MOS wag-thy-dogs to death as Usenet static
and otherwise lots of their racist flak along along with butt-loads of
your bigoted flatulence to boot, as what seems as though representing
their one and only last ditch option before the good ship LOLLIPOP
sinks into their own brown-nosed muck.

Gee whiz, folks, I can't but wonder what exactly is their
insurmountable problem is this time around.

This time it must have been something that I and one of my nifty lose
cannon inadvertently said, that was true!

As I've said before, that since I normally don't intentionally post my
topics into the likes of "alt.astronomy", or much of whatever's
alt.anything other because, it usually represents such an incest
infested cesspool of the absolute worse possible *******s (aka Third
Reich collaborators) on Earth, thereby representing a total waste of
one's time and resources. Therefore, I'm apparently missing out on all
the good and tasty brown-nose stuff and topic/author incest ****ology
that makes the Art Deco day so much worth living for, just like the
good old days when they got their Roman partners in crimes against
humanity (similar to their present day GW Bush born-again puppet) in
order to put one of their own jewboys on a stick.

If they'll do that much to one of their own kind, what else if anything
will they not do for a buck?
-
Brad Guth

Alan Anderson wrote:
"tomcat" wrote:

Possible explanation: The 'radio luminescent paint' may have converted
the hard Outer Space radiation into soft 'radio luminescent paint'
radiation, then blocked with acrylic.

If I'm reading the NASA documents correctly, the acrylic coating was
only used in the ground mockup of the LM. In the actual spacecraft, the
astronauts' space suits were sufficient to block the radiation.
You're talking about something less than soft-X-ray, as in more like
UV-c, UV-b or even UV-a which by the way can also be utilized in order
to cerate secondary/recoil photons that are visible. So what's the big
deal?

Otherwise, there's no damn converting going on, just the creation of
secondary/recoil photons that might amount to as little as the square
root of the primary radiation count. A million counts of UV-a creating
1000 counts of near-blue photons seems doable.

That's not hardly the same thing as managing to survive hard-X-rays and
gamma, now is it?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
"tomcat" wrote:

Possible explanation: The 'radio luminescent paint' may have converted
the hard Outer Space radiation into soft 'radio luminescent paint'
radiation, then blocked with acrylic.

If I'm reading the NASA documents correctly, the acrylic coating was
only used in the ground mockup of the LM. In the actual spacecraft, the
astronauts' space suits were sufficient to block the radiation.
You're talking about something less than soft-X-ray, as in more like
UV-c, UV-b or even UV-a which by the way can also be utilized in order
to cerate secondary/recoil photons that are visible. So what's the big
deal?

Otherwise, there's no damn converting going on, just the creation of
secondary/recoil photons that might amount to as little as the square
root of the primary radiation count. A million counts of UV-a creating
1000 counts of near-blue photons seems doable.

That's not hardly the same thing as managing to survive hard-X-rays and
gamma, now is it?
-
Brad Guth




For the Astronauts to have had such low dosage rates indicates that
their shielding was excellent. But I have had the most difficult time
attempting to find out just what shielding was used. It is hard to
believe that it may be just the aluminum skin of the modules.

Here, however, is a quote from NASA on the polyethelene plastic:

"Polyethylene is one such material used in radiation shield designs.
While polyethylene is not used in thermal protection systems,
carbonaceous ablators like carbon phenolic and PICA (phenolic
impregnated carbonaceous ablator), which have already flown on the
Galileo and Stardust missions respectively, should have good
radiation-shielding characteristics since they are comprised mostly of
carbon and hydrogen. Other TPS materials, such as the ceramic tiles and
blankets on the Space Shuttle, silicon based ablators, and metallic
systems, are likely to have a reduced radiation shielding capability,
based on the low atomic weight rule-of-thumb. "

One of the things that makes polyethelene plastic an excellent material
is the presence of hydrogen which tends to absorb hard radiation
without recoil.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
Alan Anderson wrote:
"tomcat" wrote:

Possible explanation: The 'radio luminescent paint' may have converted
the hard Outer Space radiation into soft 'radio luminescent paint'
radiation, then blocked with acrylic.

If I'm reading the NASA documents correctly, the acrylic coating was
only used in the ground mockup of the LM. In the actual spacecraft, the
astronauts' space suits were sufficient to block the radiation.
You're talking about something less than soft-X-ray, as in more like
UV-c, UV-b or even UV-a which by the way can also be utilized in order
to cerate secondary/recoil photons that are visible. So what's the big
deal?

Otherwise, there's no damn converting going on, just the creation of
secondary/recoil photons that might amount to as little as the square
root of the primary radiation count. A million counts of UV-a creating
1000 counts of near-blue photons seems doable.

That's not hardly the same thing as managing to survive hard-X-rays and
gamma, now is it?
-
Brad Guth




For the Astronauts to have had such low dosage rates indicates that
their shielding was excellent. But I have had the most difficult time
attempting to find out just what shielding was used. It is hard to
believe that it may be just the aluminum skin of the modules.

Here, however, is a quote from NASA on the polyethelene plastic:

"Polyethylene is one such material used in radiation shield designs.
While polyethylene is not used in thermal protection systems,
carbonaceous ablators like carbon phenolic and PICA (phenolic
impregnated carbonaceous ablator), which have already flown on the
Galileo and Stardust missions respectively, should have good
radiation-shielding characteristics since they are comprised mostly of
carbon and hydrogen. Other TPS materials, such as the ceramic tiles and
blankets on the Space Shuttle, silicon based ablators, and metallic
systems, are likely to have a reduced radiation shielding capability,
based on the low atomic weight rule-of-thumb. "

One of the things that makes polyethelene plastic an excellent material
is the presence of hydrogen which tends to absorb hard radiation
without recoil.

As one of them, you're obviously an idiot. There's no such thing as
"without recoil", as even hydrogen atoms can and do produce
secondaries, though obviously fewer per given volume, although you'll
certainly need one hell of a lot of hydrogen volume in order to
accomplish the same task as water, and another 20 fold greater yet for
that of replacing lead.

BTW; most plastics such as "Polyethylene" which isn't even rated for
boiling water would obviously melt or at least badly deform and/or
start to flow rather nicely on our physically dark and nasty moon. If
directly exposed to such raw amounts of UV is also where such plastics
should start breaking down and unavoidably outgassing rather quickly.
How toxic of an environment are you trying to create, especially along
with horrific electrostatic conditions and 100% O2 which should become
rather explosive.
-
Brad Guth

Apparently we don't need any stinking laws of physics nor that of
hard-science, when our NASA's smoke and mirrors works every time.
tomcat; One of the things that makes polyethelene plastic an
excellent material is the presence of hydrogen which tends to
absorb hard radiation without recoil.

tomcat; For the Astronauts to have had such low dosage
rates indicates that their shielding was excellent.
I'll have to try this one once again, as our 'tomcat' and of so many
others see no red flags nor even so much as a yellow caution flag.

As our 'tomcat' has clearly become one of them, whereas otherwise
you're obviously another brown-nosed idiot that's too snookered and
dumbfounded as to even realize that much. According to your own NASA
approved physics and science, there's no such thing as gamma "without
recoil", as even hydrogen atoms can and do produce secondaries, though
obviously considerably fewer and of typically softer-X-rays per given
volume because of the liquid density (which by the way is damn hard to
insulate and otherwise hold onto, especially while on the moon or even
in space travel mode) being roughly 14:1 of less density than water,
although unfortunately with LH2 at 0.071 g/cm3 is why you'll certainly
be in need of one hell of a lot of that hydrogen by the volume in order
to accomplish the same attenuation task as water, say demanding at
least ten fold as much hull thickness plus insulation as per using
water, and even that's having given another 11 fold yet for having
replaced lead with water.

Therefore, even with LH2 you're talking of something worse than 110:1
increase in shield thickness over that of utilizing lead, and if that's
intended for accomplishing each half dosage of hard-X-rays is where it
takes 20.5 g/cm2 worth of lead if given ten layer application of half
dosage per layer and you're going to be in deep trouble of running
yourself out of space if replacing that 18mm per layer of lead with
nearly 2 meters of highly insulated LH2 for accomplishing the same half
dosage, times 10 if you wanted to see a 1024:1 reduction in that TBI
dosage.

What part of "While polyethylene is not used in thermal protection
systems" do you not understand?

BTW; According to your own government specs; Plastics such as
"Polyethylene" which isn't even rated for boiling water at one
atmosphere of roughly 14.5 psi would obviously melt or at least badly
deform and/or start to flow rather nicely on our physically dark and
nasty moon that's of being nearly a vacuum. If directly exposed to
such raw amounts of UV-a,b,c is also where such plastics should start
breaking down and unavoidably outgassing rather quickly. How toxic of
an environment are you trying to create for the 'tomcat' crew and
passengers, especially if that's having to coexist along with horrific
electrostatic conditions of the lunar surface and likely using 100% O2
within the shielded craft or shelter that's getting double-IR roasted
to death, of which you'd think should become a rather explosive
environment.

Unlike what you're thinking, and/or of being told what to think, this
is not of my physics nor my science, whereas it's taken from your very
own physics and of the very same science as having been documented and
certified by your NASA, as well as by many others having no apparent
connection to our NASA or any other cloak and dagger agency. The one
thing in life as we know it, that we can count on, is in one way or
another our dying off from some form of radiation that's more than our
frail DNA can manage to cope with. Of going to the moon is not exactly
a good thing to be doing, unless you're already terminal or having a
strong death wish.
-
Brad Guth

Art Deco wrote:
Brad still doesn't have a clue what color temperature is, I see.

At this point we don't need to. Hot is hot, or rather it's whatever
the image calibration was established to represent, and thereby that
ratio of being a much as 10:1 cooler by night is obviously much cooler.

Unlike yourself, I'll accept whatever the ESA Venus Express team has to
offer. At least their best SWAG as based upon all of their new and
improved science as currently being obtained will not be that of some
Jewish perverted mindset that goes by the name Art Deco. At least
ESA's science is that of contributing science, even if it's nearly 3
months delayed.

We know from previous science as of October 1991 to expect an upper
cloud and haze deck of 70~80 km as having a temperature of perhaps
200~230 K by day, and perhaps 225~245 K at the bottom layer of them
cool daytime clouds. Of course such thick and acidic clouds do vary in
their altitude from day to night, and we've been informed as of
previous science that at roughly 60~70 km is where these clouds are
really on the move.

Too bad that as per 'Art Deco' usual, you and of your naysayism can't
seem to contribute anything.

Obviously the visual illumination spectrum differential between the
daytime of what's receiving 2650 w/m2 as opposed to the much cooler
atmosphere of the Venus nighttime season having to make do with the
nearly zilch worth of starshine/earthshine, of perhaps -16 db
representing 65,535:1 is not of what counts, whereas the initial
thermal ratio of roughly 10:1 is of the most importance. With
additional orbits and of applied spectrum filters should eventually
refine that thermal imaging down to something within +/- 5 K resolution
per pixel, and having obtained greater depth in the far-IR spectrum
should start to depict a bit of what the geothermally active surface
has to offer.
-
Brad Guth