New LRO pic A14 different Sun Angle

On Aug 25, 2:38*pm, "Dr.Colon Oscopy"
wrote:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload...otated...*****
WOW............Doc

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload..._annotated.png

That's actually getting to be an old LRO image that leaves us with
more questions than answers. The USAF could have easily done ten fold
better as of decades ago. btw, have you ever actually looked at those
original Apollo metric mapping images?

The ongoing LRO mission and much of its nifty science potential seems
to be either malfunctioning or having been mostly excluded from public
review.

Apparently our moon has only recently become entirely colorless;
meaning there’s essentially no minerals or anything but an entirely
inert light gray substance that’s as highly reflective (near whiteout)
as depicted by several of those Apollo missions. In fact, via LRO it
seems we’ve obtained next to nothing of any secondary fluorescence
data (natural or false colorized) whatsoever, which means the moon has
also become entirely nonreactive, including no sign of any sodium on
the surface or within the extremely thin and highly ionized
atmosphere.

http://directory.eoportal.org/presen...129/13466.html

By way of digital image stacking, the full 66 db in dynamic range of
those LRO cameras can be easily exploited, such as within just five
quick images can exploit 60 db when limited as to their 12 db A/D
conversion. Instead it seems we get to see 8 or less db worth of
their dynamic range, and nothing of mineral secondary/recoil
fluorescence data.

Perhaps this ongoing lack of public funded science disclosure is good
news, because it could mean that our moon is in fact entirely
worthless, not having even 1% of those common minerals or otherwise
hiding any molecule of water, brine or much less any chance of ice
that makes up Earth, because supposedly it’s all pretty much inert and
thus perfectly safe to be orbiting around or even directly upon for
months and even years on end. In fact, apparently while in orbit of
our inert moon it’s also relatively cool if not cold and devoid of any
significant bad kinds of radiation (not even any secondary IR to fret
about) just like those Apollo missions reported, though oddly those
recent ISRO and CNSA missions had each been roasting their CPUs to
death and otherwise unable to survive their encounter along with so
much other secondary radiation and perhaps even from all of that
sodium that used to surround our moon (I wonder where all of that
sodium went). Apparently all of those meteor deposits and secondary
shards of such meteors and lunar basalt are as equally light/neutral
gray and otherwise passive and thus inert/colorless (w/o mineral
fluorescence), as well as the LRO capability of UV and visible color
imaging data has either been inactive or having failed.

All we’ve got thus far is a growing inventory of LROC monochrome
images, and rather oddly pastel (minimal dynamic range) at that,
because those naturally shaded areas are in fact 100% pitch black,
meaning zero secondary reflectance from the surrounding local terrain
(Apollo imaged as offering an average 0.7+ albedo and thus never
experiencing any deep shadows) or even zilch illuminated via
earthshine. In stead, it’s almost as though the surface is actually
on average nearly as dark as coal, if not darker than coal on behalf
of those exposed basalt ridges that are simply too extremely vertical
and thus clear of any significant dust..

Apparently the 575 orbits per month and eventually cruising at 50 km
above all of that inert and colorless surface that’s so unusually
mascon populated can not seem to deliver the advertised 0.5 meter
resolution. Otherwise there’s nothing of gamma or X-ray spectrometry
(aka gamma/neutron) detections of anything, or even IR thermal imaging
as calibrated to common standards that can help specify those complex
surface temperatures to within 0.1 K, whereas even their UV camera
seems to have been on the frits. In all, the LRO w/o SAR and multiple
other kinds of remote observationology science, means that we still
can’t seem to tell how deeply dust covered, reactive and/or
electrostatic charged that crystal dry and thermally complex that
surface actually is, much less if there’s anything the least bit
unusual to behold other than the remains of various public funded
Apollo, Soviet, JAXA, ISRO and CNSA technology that’s technically
worthless because none of it survived long enough to give the general
public (that’s paying for everything) anything interactive to work
with.

Not to forget, we’re still lacking any science as to the zero delta-V
and extreme vacuum of the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1), as such is yet
another 50+ year old mystery that’s every bit as science deficient as
is any hard/objective expertise pertaining to its extreme vacuum or
any objective test of raw ice existing/coexisting within this 1 AU
illuminated space of Selene L1, for whatever given short amount of
time such ice would survive. Silly me, as here I’d thought having
objective knowledge of ice existing/coexisting within such an extreme
vacuum and otherwise solar illuminated realm of space, and of course
as well as situated upon our extremely nearby and unusual moon, was
important fundamental basics of physics and science.

It’s almost as though all we’ve ever accomplished was getting a number
robotic hardware items onto that physically dark as coal surface, and
at that is seems little of it functioned or survived according to
plan. Now we have our spendy and belated LRO mission with only
limited results, and our moon that has suddenly become entirely inert,
colorless and otherwise harmless to boot. What gives?

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

"BradGuth" babbled:

Observationologist? Is it Mars or is it or venus LOL look again
second post in this thread LOL LOL LOL LOL.................Doc

There's nothing new or all that objective as to proving EVAs were
human or robotic. Remember, I've never once insisted that Apollo
technology didn't manage to get onto the lunar surface.

BTW, via LRO where's Venus? (it has more than one camera, and as such
is perfectly capable of looking at and above the horizon)

Of course during the entire LRO trek around Earth, to the moon and
getting itself into its close orbit was perhaps at least several
hundred opportunities of recording our physically dark moon along with
the planet Venus within the same FOV. So, what's the official excuse
(s) this time?

+++++

Uh, it's not a mission priority?

T.B.

So what? It's a zero infringement upon any other science, plus
otherwise a 100% PR benefit, by showing us how a truly good and spendy
camera along with its quality lens can capture the extent of such
nifty dynamic range, as well as in vibrant hues/colors, and the
obviously much brighter item of Venus along with those deep mineral
and fluorescence colors of our naked and physically dark moon would
give us a much better idea of what that crystal dry and dusty surface
of our moon has to offer.

Even including Jupiter, Saturn or Mars would be impressive as all get
out, especially when depicted along with our physically dark moon
that's so unavoidably reactive to the UV.

Are you suggesting those LRO cameras are not as good as advertised,
and that we've paid dearly for?

++++++

I'm suggesting you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'd go into detail why that's patently obvious, but a clearly unbalanced
goof like you only rates a couple sentences of my posting time.

T.B.

On Aug 28, 1:38*pm, "The Mighty T.B."
wrote:
"BradGuth" babbled:





Observationologist? Is it Mars or is it or venus LOL look again
second post in this thread LOL LOL LOL LOL.................Doc

There's nothing new or all that objective as to proving EVAs were
human or robotic. Remember, I've never once insisted that Apollo
technology didn't manage to get onto the lunar surface.

BTW, via LRO where's Venus? (it has more than one camera, and as such
is perfectly capable of looking at and above the horizon)

Of course during the entire LRO trek around Earth, to the moon and
getting itself into its close orbit was perhaps at least several
hundred opportunities of recording our physically dark moon along with
the planet Venus within the same FOV. So, what's the official excuse
(s) this time?

+++++

Uh, it's not a mission priority?

T.B.

So what? *It's a zero infringement upon any other science, plus
otherwise a 100% PR benefit, by showing us how a truly good and spendy
camera along with its quality lens can capture the extent of such
nifty dynamic range, as well as in vibrant hues/colors, and the
obviously much brighter item of Venus along with those deep mineral
and fluorescence colors of our naked and physically dark moon would
give us a much better idea of what that crystal dry and dusty surface
of our moon has to offer.

Even including Jupiter, Saturn or Mars would be impressive as all get
out, especially when depicted along with our physically dark moon
that's so unavoidably reactive to the UV.

Are you suggesting those LRO cameras are not as good as advertised,
and that we've paid dearly for?

++++++

I'm suggesting you're an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
I'd go into detail why that's patently obvious, but a clearly unbalanced
goof like you only rates a couple sentences of my posting time.

T.B.

So in other words, once again I'm right. The planet Venus is still
very much taboo/nondisclosure rated because it's so freaking bright,
and especially vibrant to that of an unfiltered Kodak eye (film or
CCD) that's including our physically dark Selene/moon in the same FOV.

You silly folks really do not like being called the obfuscating kind
of liars that you are.

You do realize what kind of terrific dynamic range and color/hue
spectral range or scope those nifty cameras of LRO have, don't you?

~ BG

"Dr.Colon Oscopy" wrote in message
...
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload..._annotated.png
WOW............Doc

That's awesome.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On Sep 1, 1:19*pm, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Dr.Colon Oscopy" wrote in message

...http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload...41LE_annotated...
WOW............Doc

That's awesome.

Jeff

WOW what? (machines only? 5th grade PhotoShop?)

Still no fly-by-rocket lander, and laws of physics different on the
moon?

~ BG

On Aug 25, 2:38*pm, "Dr.Colon Oscopy"
wrote:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload...otated...*****
WOW............Doc

Where exactly are the LRO color/hue saturated images of those lunar
surface minerals?

Where are those false colorized UV images?

How can the naked surface of that physically dark moon not be the
least bit UV reactive?

When is the terrific SAR imaging ever going to be shared?

How the heck are those gamma/proton readings going?

Where's all the sodium hiding?

How about the 1200 w/m2 of IR energy coming back off the solar
illuminated surface?

~ BG

On Sep 7, 5:43*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 25, 2:38*pm, "Dr.Colon Oscopy"
wrote:

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/upload...notated...****
WOW............Doc

Where exactly are the LRO color/hue saturated images of those lunar
surface minerals?

Where are those false colorized UV images?

How can the naked surface of that physically dark moon not be the
least bit UV reactive?

When is the terrific SAR imaging ever going to be shared?

How the heck are those gamma/proton readings going?

Where's all the sodium hiding?

How about the 1200 w/m2 of IR energy coming back off the solar
illuminated surface?

When are we going to get to see the other 99.9% of our public funded
science.

~ BG