A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Our moon is hot, Venus is not



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 16th 06, 04:29 AM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Dr. HotSalt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Brad Guth wrote:
"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:0xrEg.7157$Mz3.5251@fed1read07


Stop inventing terminology. There's nothing "infomercial" or
"conditional" about why expecting anyone to try to fly anything
resembling a real prototype of the Lunar Lander in Earth's g-field
is a priori dumb. The best response you've come up with is insults.
Got any "science" to back up your expectation that a prototype
_could_ fly in Earth's g-field? Hello, does the phrase "not enough
thrust" mean anything to you?


Get rid of all the unessential mass,


There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way
from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember?

having only one operator and
perhaps a 10th the fuel load, and lo and behold you're at something less
than 1/6th the mass.


Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM
design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the
original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will
not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing
on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for.

Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or
radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander.


Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware.
Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through
the pilot.

Back the **** off there bub, I'm an anarchist. Dubya is exactly as
trustworthy as all other politicians that ever lived, which is to say
not at all.


So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and
wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that
absolute *******?


I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man.
Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them
with your bull****?

: However that's almost completely irrelevant; you've been claiming
: that NASA itself has been the source of a ridiculously, in fact
: impossibly unwieldy conspiracy involving thousands of government
: employees _and_ contractors _and_ their employees _and_ their
: consultants _and_ all their families. Face it, we're talking millions
: of people allegedly keeping this secret of yours.

How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as official
butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have?


Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in
hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides,
that's not a good comparison, because:

How many rusemaster insiders did our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush)
require?


The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since the
Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and get
instant wealth and fame.

: Now granted that the administrations and legislations that decide
: NASA funding are party-line motivated and could be expected to pass
down
: unpublished agendas for the NASA administration to follow on pain of
: being excluded from any other "cushy" government jobs, especially as
: many of them are party-dependent political appointees, but that
: completely disregards the rank and file NASA employees who are not
: required to have any particular party loyalty and could get a lot of
: mileage out of breaking your alleged NASA Omerta.

I never once said the vast majority of our NASA collective wasn't
perfectly nice and honest. Isn't that a rather important function of
any good perpetrated cold-war game plan?


Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in front
of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage of it?

And how about all those contractors' employees, consultants, and
all their families? What do you claim was the mechanism used to keep all
of them silent?


When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in
order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon of
ours?


Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you
display your total lack of familiarity with it.

Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get the
job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science".

And where do you get this "salty moon" crap? Why is there no
reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna? You ever stop to
think what any proportion of salt in the regolith would do to Luna's albedo?

Then we have stuff like the Australian-national-operated relay
stations that passed non-delayed video from Luna to JPL; what kept the
Aussies silent?


Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in
"chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's nothing
but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were in fact
headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into.


No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or
individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US
since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage.

Sorry, there's just no way to keep millions of mouths shut when,
according to you, any one of them, _for the last forty frigging years_
could have snuck out and presented irrefutable evidence supporting your
claims for a multimillion dollar book/movie/etc. deal and more than
adequate publicity to prevent assassination. Hence, there's no secret to
keep.


Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own
kind) for having gotten put on that stick,


Bull****. Cite or retract.

and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars.


Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started.

How about those US Mexican wars,


They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic
government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of
Conquistador days) too.

or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force?


I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed
to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely
indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new?

Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other
serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW
Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt
administration (like his own father), manage to disregard?


Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what?

BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat,
low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea.


Mark L. Fergerson

  #62  
Old August 18th 06, 01:38 AM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Brad Guth wrote:
: Get rid of all the unessential mass,
There _was_ no "unessential" mass. It had to be lifted all the way
from Earth and that costs ****loads of fuel for every ounce, remember?

Absolute horsepucky on a stick, as there was sufficient outfitting and
payload tonnage (including the rather excessive amount of fuel that
needn't be included for their terrestrial prototype fly-by-rocket
proof-testing. If need be a more powerful main thrust engine and
hauling only enough fuel for a few minutes instead of an entire deorbit
and extended down-range requirement.

Assuming that's actually true (and I'd like you to go through the LLM
design and show exactly what should be left out resulting in 1/6th the
original mass and still be flyable), then you have something that will
not fly the same as the fully-configured lander. No point in practicing
on it, which is what the LLTV/LLRVs were for.

: Or, no onboard pilot at all, just a wired and/or
: radio remote controlled fly-by-rocket prototype lander.
Which removes the intimacy of practicing on the actual hardware.
Remember that the attitude control system's feedback loop went through
the pilot.

The remote fly-by-wire and/or AI/robotic flight capability of our
prototype landers was 100% doable, and way more reliable than any
fly-by-butt interface that could only have managed if there were
sufficiently powerful momentum reaction wheels involved (of which there
were none). After all, those smarter Russians had supposedly
accomplished that much, and then some, or didn't they? (not
surprisingly, there's nothing of any Russian prototype fly-by-rocket
landers either, and we currently have somewhat of an X-prize that's
ongoing for the very first of a demonstrated prototype that'll prove
itself without demonstrating how to impact and terminate the crew.

: So why do your actions and those of so many other Usenet lords and
: wizards (including those Democrat Jews) remain in full support of that
: absolute *******?
I call you on your bull**** and you accuse me of supporting The Man.
Which bunch of *******s are you supporting by distracting us from them
with your bull****?

A mainstream status quo bystander (such as yourself) that's within the
audience of a given perpetrated fiasco is every bit as guilty as the
ones you're getting so much personal enjoyment if not wealth out of
watching, and I do think within at least some civilized states there's
even constitutionally accepted laws on the books that are being enforced
to that affect.

: How many loyal/insider follers and brown-nosed minions as
: official butt-wipes did the likes of Hitler have to have?
Thousands, many of which yelled as loud as they could at Nuremburg in
hopes of not being hanged for ex post facto whistleblowing. Besides,
that's not a good comparison, because:

But there hasn't been any such "Nuremburg" trials for what our kind have
recently done. When if ever are you folks planning on putting our
resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) on trial for similar crimes against
humanity?

The Nazis had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
whistleblowing _before_ Nuremburg. The opposite is true ever since
the Apollo program began; prove it was a fake with inside data and
get instant wealth and fame.

I've more than done just that, except I'm still a rather poor soul
and/or under-funded mad scientist.

Doesn't matter; if you're right the evidence has been right in
front of them every day from day one, and NOBODY took advantage
of it?

It actually does matter a great deal, however you're denial is just too
deeply sequestered in a bigotry cesspool of unlimited denial, whereas
that's the only part that's apparent which "doesn't matter" within your
NASA/Apollo koran of lies upon lies until each and every one of them
NASA/Apollo cows come home.

: When did I ever mention that we weren't doing everything we could in
: order to walk on that physically dark, salty and otherwise nasty moon
: of ours?
Yet you claim the known hardware wasn't up to the task even while you
display your total lack of familiarity with it.

Prove otherwise, as in put-up or shut-up. You're the one sayting the
moon is entirely passive as a guano island, as well as xenon lamp
spectrum illuminated and also saying that a nearly 30% inert GLOW
massive rocket was good for a two-way ticket to ride.

Why don't you tell us what kind of hardware _is_ necessary to get
the job done? Please avoid any "infomercial, conditional science".

NASA has essentially already demonstrated as to their one-way ticket to
ride requirements per payload kg that gets into lunar orbit, as having
transpired with much newer and improved rockets (meaning as having far
less inert GLOW to deal with) ever since their hocus-pocus Apollo era,
as well ESA and soon enough China will be doing just that.

And where do you get this "salty moon" crap?

Essentially from NASA certified links to external research that was
publicly funded; where else?

Why is there no reflectance spectroscopic data revealing salt on Luna?

Why are you such a born-again certified (AKA dumbfounded) liar, or is
being downright stupid your norm?

You ever stop to think what any proportion of salt in the regolith
would do to Luna's albedo?

Most certainly I do. Carbon/sooty salt isn't very reflective,
especially if having been mostly covered in those tens of meters deep
layers of fluffy and highly electrostatic dust.

: Double Extra Duh! I'm sorry but, you've got to be kidding, as in
: "chapel bell" S-band transponder kidding as all get out. That's
: nothing but hocus-pocus-101, especially if our Apollo missions were
: in fact headed to/from LL-1, as that much I could buy into.
No, I'm dead serious. They had no loyalty to any US agency or
individuals, and have found plenty of motivation to embarass the US
since then. You'd think at least one of them would take advantage.

Money and of those extremely valuable retirement benefits talks really
good, and otherwise by way of that absolutely lethal nondisclosure
agreement they each had to sign with their own blood is more than
sufficient incentive for keeping their mouth as well as their butt-cheek
brains shut as tightly as needed, or else. Spilling whatever beans
(though I don't know why any upside-down Australian would have had any
beans to spill, would only represent instant death to that individual
and of any close family and associates that might impose further risk.
However, as I'd said, money usually talks, though a bullet to your head
or of whatever else accomplishes the task of nullifying a given threat
would be a whole lot cheaper and of much better insurance if there's any
remaining doubt.

: Jews still insist they had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
: getting and/or having allowed Jesus Christ (clearly one of their own
: kind) for having gotten put on that stick,
Bull****. Cite or retract.

No retract, at least not until I learn otherwise. There were those
mostly nice Romans, and then there were all of those collaborating Roman
Jews that were seriously ****ed off at one of their own kind. Go
figure.

: and the Pope really doesn't want to discuss those nice Cathars.
Popes are warlords in dresses, **** 'em all. Don't get me started.

Good for you. Kick another Pope butt on my behalf.

: How about those US Mexican wars,
They lost, we won. So what? **** the Mexican Permanent Kleptocratic
government (the direct descendant of the Catholic Spanish government of
Conquistador days) too.

Fair/moral fight? (I think not!)

: or that of our 7 failed efforts at TAKING Cuba by force?
I only know of five, all of which AFAICT were deliberately designed
to fail spectacularly. That they were kept from being spectacles merely
indicates interagency infighting in DC. What else is new?

The norm of incest cloned LLPOF politics isn't new, nor was our mutually
perpetrated cold-war or that of our MI/NSA hocus-pocus of those
NASA/Apollo missions.

: Prior to 911, How many personal letters or that of whatever other
: serious communications from Usama bin Laden did our resident LLPOF(GW
: Bush) and of those other pricks before his personally corrupt
: administration (like his own father), manage to disregard?
Prolly as many as Billary Clinton did. So what?

You mean "so what's the difference", as being within your status quo or
bust mindset.

BTW I'd like somebody to explain why a law prohibiting nice, neat,
low-risk assassinations of foreign leaders is a good idea.

We've been there and at least attempted to do just that. We're just not
very good at doing such things in the most effective manner unless
there's something like oil or some other energy reserves involved,
although even that much of an incentive as of lately has been nothing
but a sorry butt load of collateral damage and blood-bath carnage of the
innocent, at thus far costing us 10+ trillions and counting, with no
apparent end in sight.

Dr. HotSalt and Mark L. Fergerson,
Why are we constructing that multi-hundred million if not multi-billion
dollar 104 acre fantasy world/fortress of ours within Iraq?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #63  
Old August 20th 06, 07:02 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

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.


Christ almighty on a stick, Jordan, I've been over and over this a
million times, and no matters how hard and/or how often you'd care to
stipulate that we've walked on that moon, there's simply no such
replicated proof (the required physics nor their supposed replicated
science simply isn't there to behold), not via any hocus-pocus
fly-by-rocket lander and especially not even via those absolutely wussy
retroreflectors that at best contribute fewer photons than any of their
Apollo impact craters that's subsequently coated with the vaporised
remains of whatever we'd sent to it's demise. Besides, that naked moon
of ours is simply and unavoidably too anticathode gamma and hard-X-ray
lethal, not to mention double-IR roasting by day and/or as continually
pulverised enough to vaporise salt. How end-user friendly do you
actually think the cosmic influx and of that solar wind actually is?

Do you folks actually think and/or want others to perceive that such
warm and fuzzy solar and cosmic influx is passive?

Do you folks expect others to perceive the raw/unfiltered solar
illumination influx is exactly as though derived from the spectrum of a
xenon lamp?

At merely an average of having been on the receiving end of obtaining
one wussy micron per year as collecting from all of that available space
debris and of meteorites and of their subsequent impact generated dust,
plus from whatever's subsequently contributed via those horrific
secondary impact shards; just how little dust should that moon have to
offer, and how otherwise fluffy or whatever clumping or otherwise
compacted should that supposedly old moon and of that fluffy moon-dust
that's apparently none reactive actually be?

Our pathetic NASA can't hardly even shine when their stuff finally/(sort
of) works.
For example; their old DC-X test flights / DeltaClipper.mov
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/...ltaClipper.mov
http://www.orbitersim.com/v2/read.asp?id=19376
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-X

With 24,000+ kgf, it had actually worked with energy and thus payload to
spare, though I believe we still haven't been properly informed as to
the extent of their applied rocket-science, nor as to appreciating the
rather excessive amount of their GLOW or of their nearly 50% inert
portion thereof (that's without shielding and without live payloas of
crew nor of any expedition outfitting), much less as to the 9800 kg of
fuel which had been intended to last only a few minutes (I'm thinking
they should have used h2o2/RP-1 or better yet h2o2/c3h4o), nor sharing
as to whatever extent they'd instead relied upon highly advanced
computers plus so easily could have incorporated momentum reaction
wheels. The DC-X had otherwise proven that as of three decades after
our initial Apollo fiasco, in that we'd finally accomplished what it
would have taken (though still representing a rather hefty sucker,
flight time limited and never once drop tested) as a remote pilotted
and/or AI/robotic controlled fly-by-rocket capability.

Unfortunately, of having applied nearly three decades more advanced
rocket-science and under the ultimate of locally controlled conditions,
they had 7 out of 12 as failures. (not exactly a great confidence
builder, especially if it was your butt headed for that physically dark
and nasty moon)

In other words, our NASA had invested into another extremely spendy
effort that can't be openly touted nor much less shared for whatever the
truth it represents. As in no matters what, the public and of the
international science and of the space exploration groups within are
simply not allowed to realize the full potential and/or grief of
whatever the spendy learning curve, nor otherwise as to learning exactly
how badly snookered they have all been, as in summarily screwed, blued
and tattooed for life.

The NASA Delta Clipper was their best effort prototype of any such
fly-by-rocket spaceship/lander is essentially devoid of sufficient
internal specifics, whereas such expertise remains as somewhat
stealth/invisible as were those WMD in Iraq. Obviously the DC-X/DC-XA
had functioned at least part of the time, though apparently they'd
cheated by way of having eliminated those pesky pilot error factors by
way of being so extensively AI/computerised, and otherwise as having
spent their fun and games budget for the next decade on behalf of
accomplishing just that much.

Of course, attempting to honestly discuss anything remotely similar as
to those previous hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo fly-by-rocket landers that had
to deal with those pesky lunar mascons, plus hauling a fairly good
amount of live and accessory payloads, including sufficient fuel loads
that was unavoidably changing their CG by the second, and otherwise
having incorporated plenty of other unavoidable inert mass to deal with
(such as packing along their return-home package), though officially
never once having accomplished an actual prototype (reduced
mass/increased thrust) test craft on behalf of any honest efforts for
accomplishing the controlled task of an incoming, down-range and soft
landing of their very own, certainly not as directly astronaut pilotted
nor even as having been remote piloted, nor much less as fully
AI/robotically having acconmplished squat.

Yet supposedly never a single hitch within any of those controlled
deorbits from 100 km, of getting their butts safely down-range past each
of those lunar mascons and then maneouvered to each of their soft
landings where there wasn't hardly any depth of dust to be found, and
not even all that dusty nor all that dark of terrain for as far as their
EVAs and unfiltered Kodak eye could see, and all of that accomplished
without benefit of their landers having the sorts of computer interfaced
fly-by-wire management of flight stability via those above GC reaction
thrusters, nor having any of those airframe momentum reaction wheels as
likely incorporated within NASA's Delta Clipper.

It's as though all the good folks associated with those DC-X/DC-XA
flights were sworn to their usual cloak and dagger and otherwise lethal
nondisclosure policy (each having signed their soul to that internal
policy in their own blood) because, at all cost the truth simply
couldn't ever be told, much less publicly demonstrated at even a fully
secured (AKA need to know) air show without spilling a few too many
beans, such as our not even having so much as the unreliable
fly-by-rocket capability as of the Apollo era.

You folks that insist upon believing we've walked on that physically
dark and nasty moon, and somehow our astronauts and their Kodak film
that was near-UV and UV-a sensitive as well as easily prone to being
affected by radiation, as somehow having lived entirely unscaved as to
tell us about it, are either sick little puppies or you've become the
very worse of collaborating minions in support of whatever your LLPOF
Skull and Bones cult represents.

I for one totally agree that we need to focus our best talents and
resources upon those new and improved missions as per sending off the
sorts of sufficiently rad-hard robotic probes. However, what we have
here is a serious priority need of kicking Usenet butt, then as to kick
a few other sorry butts that have been nothing but mainstream liars and
systematic intellectual bigots of the worse possible kind.

Don't suppose there's any honest Usenet intentions of these insider
folks, as for their ever becoming the least bit open mindset, any more
so likely than hearing from our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that his
actions and of those closely associated and of a few too many before his
administration were nothing short of having imposed their crimes against
humanity and of otherwise continually raping our global warming
environment to boot.

As to their excluding of whatever's evidence that doesn't happen to
please your mainstream status quo or bust mindset, whereas the
NASA/Apollo ruse of the century simply isn't working, now is it, any
more so than is their perpetual denial of denial being of any further
use. But then liars are in auto-default of their denial being in
auto-protect denial; so what's the difference?

We need to think along the lines of the somewhat mass produced and
thereby affordable and fully expendable rad-hard science for obtaining
those new and improved instruments and of deploying such as robotics
rather than pushing our frail DNA over the edge, along with all the
necessary applied technology that we simply do not have for sustaining a
mission with human crew. As of today's capability, of what micro-probes
and/or of relatively small robotics can obviously survive in the most
extreme of places, that are of places otherwise taboo/off-limits as to
even the most advanced forms of applied technology that's intended for
sustaining our frail DNA, and supposedly of returning it home as none
the worse off for wear, of which thus far simply can not be
accomplished.

For the old hocus-pocus Apollo gipper; Here's one more of my somewhat
dyslexic alternative reviews, at considering the cosmic radiation impact
upon your frail DNA while situated on or anywhere near that anticathode
moon of our's, thus making my argument for having the 50t/m2 available
to the CM/ISS abode as being within spec of what long-term survival at
even 60,000 km away from our physically dark and nasty moon has to
offer, as being not such a bad idea.

According to our NASA certified science with regards to the cosmic
influx of roughly one hit per second per cm2, the following is merely
extrapolated in order to estimate the lunar surface environment that's
without benefit of having a magnetosphere, therefore by rights I'm being
rather conservative, as if anything the naked moon unavoidably receives
more than it's fair share of merely one cosmic hit/cm2/sec.

However, at taking on merely those 36e6 cosmic hits/m2/hr, and for using
the conservative square root of that amount = 6e3 mrem or 6 rem/hr. A
TBI(total body irradiation) of .06 Sv/hr is obviously survivable for
several hours worth of exposure, that is if that were the one and only
amount of dosage your DNA had to worry about.

Humans living with gamma and of the unavoidable hard-X-rays isn't
exactly doable:
Of course, outer space and essentially that of our naked moon is not 2D,
but rather 3D/cubic, whereas your 3D body and of the 3D spacecrafe
and/or lunar terrain surrounding it is therefore not limited to the m2
worth of cosmic influx. Instead, your 3D body might be worth roughly
0.1 m3 which equals 100,000 cm3, making it into a cosmic target that's
10 fold as bad off. Therefore taking on 360e6 cosmic hits/hr, and if
we're using the same conservative conversion into mrem of taking the
square root makes that internal dosage of DNA trauma worthy of 19e3 mrem
or 19 rem/hr.

Unfortunately, you're never alone while moonsuit walking about, whereas
you're entire body and frail DNA within are continually surrounded by at
least 3.14e6 m2 of that physically dark and nasty lunar anticathode
terrain of physical matter, that's roughly half again as dense as
aluminum and otherwise better than 3 times the density of your body, and
thereby unavoidably more reactive in a bad sort of way of generating
those nastier forms of secondary/recoil energies of soft-gamma and
hard-X-rays.

Since the lunar atmosphere is supposedly so sparse (merely a little
sodium/salty by day), the amount of mass or atmospheric shield density
that's between yourself and any of those surrounding 3.14e6 m2 that are
naturally and unavoidably being anticathode at doing their thing, of
each m2 emitting humanly lethal dosage, whereas this outcome is not by
any means a good sign.

3.14e6 * 0.06 Sv = 188.4e3 Sv/hr, whereas if your body were only getting
0.1% of that surrounding dosage is still worth 188 Sv/hr. This is where
being a rad-hard robot gets to looking as a really good idea.

Of course, if we'd ever established those interactive science probes on
the lunar deck, or even having established that science platform as
efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone, as
such these efforts would have long ago eliminated all of the swag of
such speculations that myself and others have had to make do with. Thus
far we're not even getting the honest science about our moon from ACE
that once a month has a really good look-see, and not surprisingly our
moon was even banished by our MESSENGER flyby. It's as though our moon
is the most taboo/nondisclosure orb next to Venus and then Sirius,
whereas any of those three items are never getting the attention they
deserve, and subsequently generation after generation of students are
essentially having to learn via infomercial-crapolla-science instead of
the truth.

Unfortunately, each and every time I've taken the initiative upon
myself, as having suggested deploying extremely low cost alternatives,
for getting small/micro science probes or of those within my JAVELINs as
implanted into our moon, whereas this is when all the usual mainstream
status quo of their wag-thy-dogs to death of their infomercial flak
started to fly. Instead of getting a productive Usenet community
think-tank of folks honestly sharing in the best available science
that's replicated, and of sharing upon other viable ideas and/or
alternatives, instead we get MOS anti-think-tankism of their
insufferable Usenet naysayism in the forms of topic/author stalking,
bashings and wherever possible banishments applied, along with
whatever's the evidence that's shared on behalf of our constructive
arguments getting excluded if such evidence represents the least bit of
whatever rocks their good ship LOLLIPOP.

If that's not bad enough, we also get to receive an extra worth of PC
infecting dosage from their NOVA/GOOGLE/Usenet server accommodated
gauntlet, of delivering those absolutely pesky spermware/****ware to
continually deal with, plus that of our email accounts getting trashed
with further butt-loads of their worse possible infected files, and
otherwise for years I've had hundreds of those pesky hang-up phone calls
that are obviously intended to impose as much damage as possible by
remote means, that which our cloak and dagger MI/NSA spooks have
entirely at their disposal and within their intentions as to utilize
every means available without spilling any of their precious
nondisclosure beans (such as our perpetrated cold-wars that as of lately
have produced such extensive collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent).

In other words, there's apparently so much that I'm right about that
it's getting a wee bit hot and nasty to be sharing whatever without
involving yet another round of status quo flak. So, if you're at all
interested in our moon, Venus or our orbital association with the Sirius
star/solar system, as such I'd advise being prepared for taking on the
absolute worse of the worse sorts of nasty things to happen, and so much
so that it could become a whole lot safer for those Venusians or
visiting ETs as having existed/coexisted on Venus than it is for those
of us right here on this polluted and subsequently global warming Earth
that's about to go WW-III postal in order to further cover thy
perpetrated cold-war butts.

As I've said before, the geothermally active surface environment of
Venus is simply a whole lot safer than Earth when it comes down to the
solar/cosmic levels of Sv. That Venusian environment is obviously not
Earth like (more or less hell like), but as such it also isn't all that
humanly insurmountable if a gram of intelligent common sense gets
applied (a halfwit village idiot should be qualified). The ESA Venus
EXPRESS mission has been helping to prove this argument to be true,
especially once their PFS instrument gets into action (as by rights it
should), that will better map the surface of that geothermally active
terrain to a much greater resolution and extent than previously obtained
(as limited only by their highly elliptical polar orbit or otherwise
foiled by way of our spooks interfering with their to/from command
instructions and/or merely corrupting their mission data).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #64  
Old August 21st 06, 07:49 AM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jordan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not


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

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.


Christ almighty on a stick, Jordan, I've been over and over this a
million times, and no matters how hard and/or how often you'd care to
stipulate that we've walked on that moon, there's simply no such
replicated proof ...


The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed
by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the
_Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in
supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a
hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd.

snip the rest of the gibberish

- Jordan

  #65  
Old September 12th 06, 10:27 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed
by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the
_Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in
supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a
hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd.


Too bad for you, and of your all-knowing naysayism that's based entirely
upon our hocus-pocus of NASA's infomercial-science plus their butt-loads
of evidence exclusions.

Sorry that you're so easily snookered and otherwise having been so
terribly dumbfounded for all of your pathetic brown-nosed minion of a
life that can only suck and blow.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #66  
Old September 14th 06, 07:40 AM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jordan[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 346
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not


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

The Apollo missions were broadcast on global television and confirmed
by every Great Power's scientific establishments, including the
_Soviet_ scientific establishment, which not only had no interest in
supporting this supposed hoax but every interest in exposing such a
hoax if it existed. Your statement is therefore absurd.


Too bad for you, and of your all-knowing naysayism that's based entirely
upon our hocus-pocus of NASA's infomercial-science plus their butt-loads
of evidence exclusions.

Sorry that you're so easily snookered and otherwise having been so
terribly dumbfounded for all of your pathetic brown-nosed minion of a
life that can only suck and blow.


Wow ... a reply with absolutely _no_ informational content. Not only
does it not address my point, it isn't even a relevant set of insults
_based_ on the point (since "naysayism" in this context would be the
claim that manned Lunar expeditions were _impossible_, not possible --
it's not as if Man has always had a dream of _faking_ Lunar landings!)

I'm impressed.

- Jordan

  #67  
Old September 14th 06, 04:31 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Wow ... a reply with absolutely _no_ informational content. Not only
does it not address my point, it isn't even a relevant set of insults
_based_ on the point (since "naysayism" in this context would be the
claim that manned Lunar expeditions were _impossible_, not possible --
it's not as if Man has always had a dream of _faking_ Lunar landings!)


And once again you've been setting an information example by way of
quoting from your NASA/Apollo koran. Way to go, Jordan.

I'd thought this topic was about how hot in more ways than heat that our
moon is, and of otherwise how not so hot Venus is in more ways than just
heat.

You're the one that's rejecting the regular laws of physics, not me.

You're the one that'll believe anything that's in NASA/Apollo print, as
though it's the words and pictures from God.

You're the one that basing nearly everything of the past, present and
future upon infomercial-science and those conditional laws of physics,
not me.

You're the one that's still snookered and totally dumbfounded to the
point of no return.

You can't get your butt-cheek brains unstuck from that space-toilet, yet
you're telling others how our moon is so end-user friendly, and that
spending trillions on doing Mars is a good thing.

Sorry if I simply don't get your drift any more so than I get tomcat's
drift of spending every last cent and energy resource we've got on your
behalf.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #68  
Old September 23rd 06, 10:18 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message ink.net

What exactly is your constipated problem with your intellectual
flatulence this time?


Geesh, is that the best you can do? I'm insulted you couldn't be more
creative.

In any case, truth hurts, doesn't it?


In any case, I'm certainly glad that I'm not a Thrid Reich collaborating
minion, much less brown-nosed and intellectually butt-wipe worthy like
yourself.

Obviously I'm right about out moon being downright hot-hot-hot, and
freaking nasty to boot! I'm also right about Venus being somewhat
newish though survivable, that is only if you weren't such a naysay
bigot.

Here's my Usenet hot potato, as offered once more for the old gipper:
Earth w/o Magnetosphere, w/o Moon would have been so much worse off than
our merely getting excessively thawed out. Good thing we have that
nearby moon responsible for most of our global warming, and for
representing our last ice age thaw which this Earthly environment will
ever see.

Henry Kroll and myself are into our usual exploratory research and
subsequent deductive thinking, whereas we're still proposing that
intelligent/intellectual life as having evolved entirely upon this Earth
may simply have been a wee bit pre-ice-age iffy, as having been situated
a little too far away from our sun that simply wasn't quite as active
and thereby as nicely radiating as it is today, and especially extra
iffy should Earth be having to manage this task without the enormous
benefits of such a nearby moon.

Proto-Earth had obviously once upon a time offered a nearly Venus like
atmosphere, thus technically capable of having created and obviously
having sustained such complex happenstance of extremely large and
somewhat bulky life, but perhaps not offering all that much
environmental quality nor of sufficient diversity, and especially if
still limited to existing within or of the below-surface environment,
and so much worse yet if the majority of mother Earth's above surface
environment had otherwise been so often and so nearly entirely
sub-frozen solid for so much of the time. As clearly indicated by way
of those ice core samples, depicting each of the many ice-ages that were
consistently worse off per each proceeding ice-age cycle, that's having
represented such an extensive planetology worth of environmental energy
differential, whereas in so much difference that such vast global
thermal cycles simply can not be so easily attributed to local orbital
mechanics without involving our moon, nor likely of sufficient solar
energy fluctuation cycles without having to involve another sun.

Unfortunately, this simple task of our asking others to contribute
constructively on what's clearly outside their cozy mainstream status
quo box, whereas obviously that's not exactly going down without a damn
good fight, as that sort of fair and balanced open mindset simply hasn't
been transpiring as of long before we came along, at least not without
involving a few dead bodies of those mindset upon sustaining their one
and only outlook, which has been cultivated in order to suit their one
and only pagan faith-based interpretation, and unfortunately that sort
of naysay mindset simply can't be altered regardless of the physics and
best available science that's replicated.

Something else of a stellar like significant influence has allowed Earth
to freeze so extensively, and then to have thawed on the 100,000 year
cycle. The only problem with this well established history is that by
now we should have been deep into our next freeze cycle.

It is thought by many that human activity alone has been the culprit, as
of lately having contributed so extensively to our failing environment,
in that we humans alone are the primary cause of the accellerated global
warming fiasco that's showing us no remorse. The best available science
tends to support this analogy, although if life and of orbital mechanics
were only so simple, as such I'd agree that human contributions and
otherwise direct damage to our environment has been sufficiently proven
as having an affect that's anything but beneficial to our long term
quality of life.

As further pointed by Henry Kroll's and my ongoing research, there has
been no apparent indications of sufficient lunar orbital fluctuations
that's in any way capable of itself being associated with all of those
previous ice-age cycles, in fact if there's anything that's
scientifically and being orbital physics perfectly clear, is that our
moon had been unavoidably cruising so much closer and therefore would
have been more so moderating to our environment, if not having entirely
prevented such previous deep cycles of ice-ages.

We also believe the best available evidence and science we've got
demonstrates that our moon has only been involved with that of the
latest thaw, which seems to have no apparent end in sight. This analogy
from the best available science is what's suggesting that our currently
still salty and otherwise once upon a time icy proto-moon hasn't been
orbiting around Earth for quite as long as we'd been informed, much less
having been created by way of any Mars like impactor.

Taking a little notice as to how much orbital energy that moon of ours
currently represents, and thereby affording an unavoidable inside and
out influence upon Earth's environment.

Moon's orbital (Fc)Centripetal Force = 2.00076525e20 N = 2.04021e19 kgf

Converting those terrific gravity related Newtons worth of such orbital
kgf into raw energy of joules (Newton = 0.1 kg/m/s) and (1 kg/m/s =
9.80665 joules):

The associated centrifugal energy worth of 2.000765e20 N.m. = 2e20
joules

The 40 mm/year recession is essentially worthy of one meter/.04 = 25:1

Therefore, if leaving us at 40 mm/yr = 2.00076e20/25 = 8.00304e18
joules/yr

8.00304e18/8.76e3 = .91359e15 joules per hour = 913.6e12 jhr

913.6e12 jhr/3.6e3 = 253.8e9 joules/sec (recession energy = 254
gigajoules)

A second calculation that's based upon a bit more robust assesment of
gravitation force as also converted into joules of energy gets this
amount of applied energy a little more impressive;
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...14/i4/moon.asp
Is the moon really old? by "Dr Don DeYoung . . . if the earth moon
system is as old as evolutionists say, we should have lost our moon long
ago."

"There is a huge force of gravity between the earth and moon - some 70
million trillion pounds (that's 70 with another 18 zeroes after it), or
30,000 trillion tonnes (that's 30 with 15 zeroes)."

If Dr. Don DeYong's 30e18 kgf were correct; 30e18 kgf * 9.807 = 2.94e20
Joules

At the supposed ongoing recession of .04 m/yr = 2.942e20/25 = 11.768e18
J/yr
The subsequent energy of recession per second:
11.77e18/31.54e6 = .3732e12 or 373.2e9 J (recession energy = 373
gigajoules)
-

In either case of 254 gj or 373 gj, and trust that I've not yet taken
into account the amount of extra tidal energy that's having to
compensate for the drag coefficient, nor of have I included the
reflected IR and FIR worth of whatever else that physically dark moon
has to offer, whereas this still represents a rather terrific amount of
energy that's obviously powerful enough to have affected Earth's
platetonics and perhaps towards keeping that inner laler that's up
against our outer shell that's surrounding our molten iron core in a
sufficient tidal motion, thereby extensively pumping up and otherwise
sustaining the highly beneficial if not critically essential
magnetosphere, that's unfortunately in the process of failing us at the
rate of 0.05%/year, perhaps every bit as Global warming lethal with
10,000 deaths per year currently attributed to various skin cancers that
are directly caused by the excess amounts of cosmic, solar and lunar
derived gamma nad hard-X-ray energy that's getting through our
insignificant atmosphere, that's going to leave us in great strides as
the magnetosphere fails to fend off those solar winds.

Remember that without such a magnetosphere, surface life as we've known
it wouldn't have stood much of a chance in this otherwise sub-frozen
hell of our having evolved or otherwise having coexisted upon Earth w/o
moon. From other research and of perfectly reasonable conjectures that
fit entirely within the regular laws of planetology physics, from which
we've also been informed that early Earth and therefore most likely
prior to our having a moon, is when this environment had a 50+ bar
(Venus like) worth of a highly protective atmosphere, that obviously
represented early life upon Earth didn't require the benefits of any
moon or that of the stabilized magnetosphere.

As it is (w/o drag coefficient or secondary IR/FIR), and especially if
going by the hour, it seems as though a great deal of available
recession energy either way.
Brad Guth: 254 gj * 3.6e3 = 914.4e12 j/hr
Don DeYoung: 373 gj * 3.6e3 = 1,343e12 j/hr

Even going by way of my less impressive numbers of 914 terajoules/hr,
excluding the fact that our moon was obviously once upon a time much
closer and if created via a Mars impactor would have been initially
receding at the much faster rate of 6+ km/s at it exited the physical
real of Earth's surface, whereas the more likely arrival and subsequent
glancing impact of our once upon a time icy proto-moon (that which
currently represents such an absolutely horrific amount of ongoing
applied energy), plus having ever since accommodated those extremely
beneficial tidal affects (inside and out), in that if this amount of
existing orbital energy were removed from our environment would cause a
great deal of harm in many ways other than the loss of it's nifty
moonshine and of it's reflectively good IR/FIR worthy albedo that's also
representing a contributing thermal energy factor on behalf of
sustaining our environment that's still thawing out from the last ice
age, and we believe so much so beneficial that if this moon as is were
to be removed, whereas Earth's oceans would not only become cesspools of
mostly jellyfish life, but our environment would also unavoidably and
rather extensively start to ice itself up to quite an extent.

We believe that life upon this Earth was simply situated a bit too far
away from the sun, especially if it were having to manage without the
enormous benefits of our moon, and it only gets worse yet if this life
were having to manage upon the surface without the extra benefit of a
substantial magnetosphere. Intelligent/intellectual life on Earth as we
know it simply couldn't have evolved and having matured and survived
above the surface without the enormous energy influx and physical
modualtion and thermal moderation benefits of the moon. Unfortunately,
not only is the moon still moving itself away from us, but so has the
magnetosphere been dropping off by roughly .05%/year. (we think those
two factors are somewhat related to one another)

Others having similar notions but sharing somewhat different conclusions
as to Earth w/o moon are still somewhat skewed by the supposed science
associated with our having explored our physically dark, salty and
otherwise extremely reactive/anticathode of a naked moon (Earth's
revolving mascon), as though it's no longer such a big deal.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys235...n/no_moon.html

Unfortunately, all forms of human recorded history or otherwise of
earlier proto-human depicted history are those extensively if not
entirely limited to the time since our last ice-age. It's exactly as
though we hadn't obtained a moon prior to that cycle of a badly frozen
time, and it's also as though whatever's intelligent/intellectual life
upon this Earth hadn't actually existed/coexisted to any extent prior to
the last ice-age. So, what's so entirely different as to our last ice
age and of the subsequent thaw?

I totally agree that proto-life as having formulated under a much
thicker atmosphere, below the surface and even from within salty ice was
perfectly doable without a moon, whereas the core energy of mother Earth
would have been doing it's thing of radiating and of venting geothermal
energy plus having contributed nifty loads of raw elements and thus
unavoidably having created a great deal of complex opportunities for the
random happenstance and chemistry on behalf of local and panspermia life
to have eventually gotten off to a good start (although our best efforts
thus far haven't managed to simulate nor otherwise having accomplished
such DNA formulation from scratch on behalf of even having created the
most basic forms of such intelligent proto-life). Using the soil and/or
of the available water and thereby mud certainly counts as a viable
shield against the otherwise lethal solar and cosmic radiation, as well
as for having 50+ bar worth of an early atmosphere would have
extensively if not entirely protected early life on Earth w/o moon and
w/o magnetosphere.

Earth’s atmosphere before the age of dinosaurs
by; Octave Levenspiel, Thomas J. Fitzgerald and Donald Pettit
"Our sister planet and nearest neighbor, Venus, has an atmosphere of 90
bar pressure, consisting of 96% CO2 (5). Why should Earth be so
different? Ronov measured the equivalent of at least 55 bar of CO2 tied
up as carbonates around the world (6), whereas Holland estimates that at
least 70 bar of CO2 is bound as carbonate materials (7). These
carbonates had to come from the atmosphere, by way of the oceans, so we
propose that, after the original oxidation of CH4 and CO, Earth’s early
atmosphere was at very high pressure, up to 90 bar, and that it
consisted primarily of CO2."

http://journals.iranscience.net:800/...l/12learn.html
This extra pressure and of mostly CO2 would also have represented a
great deal of buoyancy, that should have made life for the larger
species (as well known to roam about Earth's surface as of millions of
years ago) considerably more bearable and even flyable at great bulk.
Therefore, large scale life as we know evolved, as well as having
gradually adjusted to such pressure and even as surviving within the
concentrations of CO2 and sulphurs. CO2 alone (especially of dry CO2)
is not even taboo to life as we know it, whereas even in great amounts
and under such terrific pressure is just representing a different
environment that takes a little getting used to, in much the same as
other life upon Earth that survives at great ocean depths and near to
where it's hot enough to melt certain alloys has been proven as doable.

My fundamental two part question is:
How would the purely terrestrial evolution of intelligence have been
influenced or otherwise related to our having or not having a moon,
and/or that of our not having or as per having a viable magnetosphere
that's essentially of what's defending our relatively thin remainder of
an atmosphere?

Part two of the above question: Excluding the basic intelligence worth
of a given species survival that's proven as often being a whole lot
smarter than what many humans seem to have at their disposal, what if
anything does human intellectual intelligence of rational/irrational
thoughts (including that of our learned and thus cultivated bigotry,
greed and arrogance) have to do with planetology or that of various
orbital mechanics?

PLANETARY SCIENCE: HISTORY OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE / as published in
Nature and ScienceWeek
http://scienceweek.com/2003/sc031017-1.htm
Perhaps this one should have been entitled: Dare to think outside the
box is extremely lethal, whereas perhaps this report should also have
addressed the fundamental physics as to what other sorts of glancing
impactor(s) could have given enough rotational energy to have initially
started the outer surface rotating as different than our molten
interior, or simply having mascon motivated our Earth's interior, thus
giving us our actively mascon motivated magnetosphere to start with.

Clearly our previous mainstream thinking has been primarily limited or
rather sequestered free thought by way of whatever our spendy mainstream
infomercial-science plus faith-based and thus skewed science had to
guide us by, whereas our NASA and thereby mostly based upon their
religious faith approved Mars impactor notion has been representing
their all-knowing and apparently the one and only viable alternative (as
though God had spoken), that which continually gets published and
otherwise promoted at public expense, that's also sufficiently similar
to the Alan Guth accelerating expansion/BIG-BANG or "Inflationary
Universe" theory that's certainly very compatible with the
pro-intelligent/creation and thus keeping within the pro-faith based
realm of God's creation being the general rule, that is unless you
wouldn't mind losing all credibility and most likely your job plus
seeing your entire career and of everything associated going down the
nearest space-toilet, at least that's how insecure and/or immoral most
religious cults and of their political partnerships have managed in the
past, and remains as how they would still most likely deal with such
fools as outsiders that would suggest anything that wasn't pre-approved
and thus certified and accepted by way of God's pagan
replacement(NASA/Apollo). At least that's my honest impression as based
upon how this anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from hell treats
whatever's rocking their boat, that which clearly has no apparent
intentions of their cutting the rest of us any slack.
-
Brad Guth







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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Space Calendar - January 28, 2005 [email protected] History 1 January 31st 05 10:33 AM
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 23rd 04 05:03 PM
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 [email protected] History 0 December 23rd 04 05:03 PM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM
Space Calendar - September 28, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 September 28th 03 08:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.