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

Brad Guth is......



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 4th 04, 10:09 PM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Herb Schaltegger lid wrote in message ...
chenshawREMOVE@(TH+ESE wrote:

"Jay Windley" wrote in news:bvm5g8$u3o$1
@terabinaries.xmission.com:

| camera it's within, and it only gets worse off if we're speaking of
| some 70 mm wide view capturing camera

That's the diagonal field of view.


In photography, lengths in mm usually refer to the focal length of the
lens. It's not the width of the lens.

Not when you're referring to the size of the film stock.


I was referring to either a double-wide 35mm format or simply that of
the 5cm X 7cm format, of which I don't believe they had such.

The part about an assembly of those 50mm images was exactly what it
was, though why did they feel so compelled to skew the lunar surface
into being so unusually near white, and without hardly any meteorites
and shards?

This following rant is getting somewhat off the lunar topic, though
not entirely.

Folks have got to stop focusing upon the likes of Mars. I mean, my
God, Mars has been frozen solid and of otherwise irradiated to death
for thousands of years, not to mention pulverised in the past and of
what's ongoing by those pesky meteorites. So far, all that's been
recently learned is exactly what we already knew.

And so what if we located some remains of even an advanced
civilization that once upon a time survived on Mars. It's way too
freaking spendy just getting there, and we've NOT a workable solution
for retrieving one kilogram, much less a tonne worth of anything from
another planet. Remember folks, there's still not independent proof
that we've managed to retrieve one gram directly from our own moon, at
the very least we have NOT even a working prototype instrument lunar
lander, much less a pilotted craft. In other words, you folks need to
get a grip and/or another life, either that or an alternative Borg
collective that has not been infected by the sorts of NSA/DoD Trojan
Horse virus affecting all of what our NASA is involved with.

Even the highly published notion of pondering over some Earth like
monster planet that's 150 light years distant is hardly worth going
for, much less flushing billions into some one-way probe that the next
ten thousand generations will not obtain squat worth of anything.
Worse yet would be having to expedite another spendy though apparently
expendable shuttle crew upon upgrading Hubble is simply morbid, and so
far out of whack that even Charles Manson would be proud, backed up by
the likes of Hitler and those Cathar exterminating Popes, with our
very own warlord GW Bush bringing up the rear with his educational
"high standards and accountability" and of that ultimate "so what's
the difference" policy.

If you insist upon spending billions and of wasting technology and
expertise on something that can't directly benefit humanity, at least
try looking at Sirius and of the 110,000 year cycle of life that's
establishing something that's way more likely as to reveil where our
creators and/or DNA came from, as that's but 8.64 ly. With only the
existing laser technology that we've had for a couple of decades,
those reply packets and/or streaming images (via laser and/or
microwave) could have been coming in as we speak. Meaning that we
might not have the proper laser spectrum detection knowhow to be
receiving by way of photons but, surely anyone looking at our
relatively dim solar system should have been more than capable of
detecting laser packets emitting from such a dumbfounded planet as
Earth.

Otherwise, try focusing yourself upon getting the lunar space elevator
(LSE-CM/ISS) up and running. Once this nifty elevator is established,
only then will the mining of lunar 3He become viable, among so many
other considerations, all of which can directly improve things for
humanity, and within an affordable as well as obtainable goal that's
way past due.

If you elect to think our moon is somehow "off limits" and/or "taboo",
then try out a little local area code calling to/from Venus, as that's
not only taking far less than a penny on any probe dollar, but focused
upon where other life NOT as we know it has to be existing in spite of
our ignorance, arrogance and greed, as there's something on Venus as
of at least 14 years ago that's not microbe, but more than likely
lizard folk like, and perchance even Cathar by nature. Remembering
that unlike Mars, on Venus it's not being irradiated to death nor
currently being pulverised by meteorites, and there's absolutely no
shortage of energy, and that with said energy all sorts of
insurmountable issues become surmountable. Remember also that the
thick and dense atmosphere of Venus is a super terrific positive
attribute, just the opposit of what our NASA and NASA moderated
publications have to say.

Of course, if your Borg implants have been flashing that "blue screen
of death" message, then perhaps you shouldn't bother yourself with the
truth, as that could prove CPU fatal.

Latest Sirius entry (Feb. 03, 2004):
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

David Sereda (honest ideas and notions upon UV energy), for best
impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video tape:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
  #12  
Old February 4th 04, 10:18 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......


"Guth/IEIS~GASA" wrote in message
om...
|
| I was referring to either a double-wide 35mm format or simply that of
| the 5cm X 7cm format, of which I don't believe they had such.

I misunderstood your point. The Hasselblads used a square 70 millimeter
film format. The Biogon lens had a 38 millimeter focal length which, with
that format, produces a diagonal field of view of approximately 70 degrees.
It was that 70mm, not the film format, that I thought you were indicating.
Sorry for the confusion; it was my mistake. I saw the number "70" and
jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Some of the later missions carried 35mm still film as well, but it was not
used during lunar surface EVAs.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #13  
Old February 4th 04, 10:47 PM
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Am Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:18:31 -0700 schrieb "Jay Windley":

I misunderstood your point. The Hasselblads used a square 70 millimeter
film format. The Biogon lens had a 38 millimeter focal length which, with
that format, produces a diagonal field of view of approximately 70 degrees.
It was that 70mm, not the film format, that I thought you were indicating.
Sorry for the confusion; it was my mistake. I saw the number "70" and
jumped to the wrong conclusion.


Some small corrections about the Apollo Hasselblads:
image format 55*55mm (shot on 70mm film) between 150 and 180 images
per magazine, depending on film type. And now a listing of used
lenses:
focal length (mm) view angle (degrees)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Biogon 4.5/38 38 90
Biogon 5.6/60 60 65
Planar 2.8/80 80 52
Planar 3.5/100 100 43
UV-Sonnar 4.3/105 105 41
Sonnar 5.6/250 250 17
Tele-Tessar 8/500 500 8.5



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news
  #14  
Old February 7th 04, 12:03 AM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

"Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" wrote in message ...
Am Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:18:31 -0700 schrieb "Jay Windley":

I misunderstood your point. The Hasselblads used a square 70 millimeter
film format. The Biogon lens had a 38 millimeter focal length which, with
that format, produces a diagonal field of view of approximately 70 degrees.
It was that 70mm, not the film format, that I thought you were indicating.
Sorry for the confusion; it was my mistake. I saw the number "70" and
jumped to the wrong conclusion.


Some small corrections about the Apollo Hasselblads:
image format 55*55mm (shot on 70mm film) between 150 and 180 images
per magazine, depending on film type. And now a listing of used
lenses:
focal length (mm) view angle (degrees)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Biogon 4.5/38 38 90
Biogon 5.6/60 60 65
Planar 2.8/80 80 52
Planar 3.5/100 100 43
UV-Sonnar 4.3/105 105 41
Sonnar 5.6/250 250 17
Tele-Tessar 8/500 500 8.5



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)


Since there's no lunar atmosphere, just a few of those micrometorites
incoming every hour or so (plus loads of inbound dust bunnies at
perhaps 10km/s), thus essentially nothing sufficiently filtering out
the truly horrific UV spectrum. I'm wonderwing which if any UV filters
were applied, and/or included within those lenses (such as the
"UV-Sonnar 4.3/105")?

Of course a red-50 would have been rather terrific for most B&W film,
though an orange-50 + a red-50 should have been required for best
results.


BTW: I've come across a little something about Sirius that's worth
noting:
Check out this page, it's more or less focused upon mortal creationism
than not, but I do believe directly related to planets such as Mars,
Earth and Venus;
(latest entry) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm
  #15  
Old February 7th 04, 10:47 AM
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Am 6 Feb 2004 15:03:21 -0800 schrieb "Guth/IEIS~GASA":

Some small corrections about the Apollo Hasselblads:
image format 55*55mm (shot on 70mm film) between 150 and 180 images
per magazine, depending on film type. And now a listing of used
lenses:
focal length (mm) view angle (degrees)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Biogon 4.5/38 38 90
Biogon 5.6/60 60 65
Planar 2.8/80 80 52
Planar 3.5/100 100 43
UV-Sonnar 4.3/105 105 41
Sonnar 5.6/250 250 17
Tele-Tessar 8/500 500 8.5



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)


Since there's no lunar atmosphere, just a few of those micrometorites
incoming every hour or so (plus loads of inbound dust bunnies at
perhaps 10km/s), thus essentially nothing sufficiently filtering out
the truly horrific UV spectrum. I'm wonderwing which if any UV filters
were applied, and/or included within those lenses (such as the
"UV-Sonnar 4.3/105")?


I did NOT write, that all these types of optics were used on moon's
surface. In fact was only the Biogon 60 used there; all other lenses
were dedicated for use in the CM or while space EVAs. E.g. the
UV-Sonnar was dedicated for astro-photographics, or the Tele-Tessar
for surveillance purpose out of orbit...



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news
  #16  
Old February 11th 04, 03:34 PM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

"Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" wrote in message ...
Am 6 Feb 2004 15:03:21 -0800 schrieb "Guth/IEIS~GASA":

Some small corrections about the Apollo Hasselblads:
image format 55*55mm (shot on 70mm film) between 150 and 180 images
per magazine, depending on film type. And now a listing of used
lenses:
focal length (mm) view angle (degrees)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
Biogon 4.5/38 38 90
Biogon 5.6/60 60 65
Planar 2.8/80 80 52
Planar 3.5/100 100 43
UV-Sonnar 4.3/105 105 41
Sonnar 5.6/250 250 17
Tele-Tessar 8/500 500 8.5



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)


Since there's no lunar atmosphere, just a few of those micrometorites
incoming every hour or so (plus loads of inbound dust bunnies at
perhaps 10km/s), thus essentially nothing sufficiently filtering out
the truly horrific UV spectrum. I'm wonderwing which if any UV filters
were applied, and/or included within those lenses (such as the
"UV-Sonnar 4.3/105")?


I did NOT write, that all these types of optics were used on moon's
surface. In fact was only the Biogon 60 used there; all other lenses
were dedicated for use in the CM or while space EVAs. E.g. the
UV-Sonnar was dedicated for astro-photographics, or the Tele-Tessar
for surveillance purpose out of orbit...



cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)


Thanks for your feedback. So, therefore no UV filters were applied to
the Biogon 5.6/60?


Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA
  #17  
Old February 11th 04, 09:46 PM
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Am 11 Feb 2004 06:34:01 -0800 schrieb "Guth/IEIS~GASA":

Since there's no lunar atmosphere, just a few of those micrometorites
incoming every hour or so (plus loads of inbound dust bunnies at
perhaps 10km/s), thus essentially nothing sufficiently filtering out
the truly horrific UV spectrum. I'm wonderwing which if any UV filters
were applied, and/or included within those lenses (such as the
"UV-Sonnar 4.3/105")?


I did NOT write, that all these types of optics were used on moon's
surface. In fact was only the Biogon 60 used there; all other lenses
were dedicated for use in the CM or while space EVAs. E.g. the
UV-Sonnar was dedicated for astro-photographics, or the Tele-Tessar
for surveillance purpose out of orbit...


Thanks for your feedback. So, therefore no UV filters were applied to
the Biogon 5.6/60?


As my documentation (Engelhardt, W.: Fotografie im Weltraum 1, vwi,
Herrsching, Germany, 1980, ISBN 3-88369-011-2) 'says', no _extra_
filters were attached to the lenses - during the whole Apollo
programme (and while Mercury or Gemini). But I would not deny the
possibility, that filtering for only a special wavelength range was
maybe 'embedded' while constructing and/or building that special
lenses (some lenses were standard ones available to every normal
photographer). As a constructor, _I would_ have done that, simply to
get sharper images.

On lunar surface, with thick gloves, an astrounaut would not be able
to 'fiddle around' with attaching filters - even the aperture and
exposure time controls as well as the shutter release button got
extensions, so they could be handled easier.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
http://zili.de X No HTML in
/ \ email & news
  #18  
Old February 18th 04, 04:54 AM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Thanks for that feedback, though I'm still not understanding and/or
appreciating the degree of pathetic photographic documentation as
pertaining to the entire collective body of those Apollo missions.

This following is about what I believe can be accomplished today, as
is with the technology at hand.

I've sort of lied to folks about so much nowadays NOT being rocket
science anymore, as this following portion is serious "Rocket
Science", though it's still not for mankind, at least not until we
actually learn first hand about the conditions on the moon.

Though instead of our flushing hundreds of billions and decades into
the frozen and thoroughly irradiated to death Mars space toilet, then
having to continually dodge them meteorites, I do believe this lunar
goal is worth supporting, even if it's via our resident "so what's the
difference" WMD warlord. Though as for starters, we may need some
actual lunar science data that's of "real time".

If we're not there first, it'll either be China or perhaps Russia, or
even the ESA group that certainly has nothing to lose.

"Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the cheap"

As just an example;
I'm thinking that of a modern day probe with a suitable battery and
compact PV cell array that's either tightly integral and/or
subsequently deploy able upon impact, that perhaps this form of micro
instrument and of it's data/transponder could be comprised of as
little as 1 kg. Of course, of your vastly superior "all-knowing" probe
can become whatever, 10 kg 1 t.

As for my initial delivery scheme, I'm thinking of involving hydrogen
or whatever gas filled balloons, actually quite a good number of
balloons within one another, and obviously not the least bit for their
buoyancy, but as for spreading out the impact to a rather sizable zone
of perhaps as much as 10 m2, as opposed to the instrument probe impact
zone representing as little as a mere 0.001 m2 (25 mm upper body with
a tapered 25 mm 5 mm spike end), and of what this relatively small
instrument/probe may be looking somewhat like a miniture spear or half
javelin.

1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

In other words, I'm suggesting that the initial impact of this small
probe can be spread conservatively by at least 1000:1, therefore if
the raw velocity at impact were to become 5 km/s, thus a 1 kg/probe
that was surrounded by another kg worth of balloons and sub/micro
balloons that would impact at an overall worth of 25,000 tonnes,
though this energy is subsequently being spread over the 10 m2, thus
the actual javelin probe body of 0.001 m2 should become merely 2.5
tonnes, though applying another 10X fudge factor makes for 25 t.

Any way you'd care to slice it, 25 tonnes worth of probe impact is
still one hell of an impact, though I tend to believe this could be
survivable, especially since the notion of delivering any decent probe
will ideally need to be firmly implanted into lunar soil and rock, the
deeper the better, as long as the upper protion remains exposed for
receiving and transmitting data.

Obviously, if this turned out being the 25 tonnes worth of impact
survival, as representing too much to ask for, then enlarging the
balloon and of increasing the numbers of the smaller balloons within
should further spread this impact, thus decelerating and taking the
brunt of the probe delivery impact. Another avenue is to lengthen upon
the spike end, at the risk of increasing the mass, as the compression
of this semi-hallow javelin will also absorb energy. Obviously the
deployment and desired free-fall vertical positioning will need to be
gyroscopic, though the probe itself could be initially set spinning at
100,000 rpm, adding somewhat a friction drilling attribute to the
probe impact.

The lunar soil (supposedly 11% reflective index and of clumping moon
dirt) should account for another degree of impact deceleration, then
of the penetrated rock and I'll assume some degree of compression of
the javelin probe tip itself should absorb whatever remains. At least
if all fails, the value per micro-probe isn't going to bust the world
bank, nor stress the technology expertise to any breaking point, as if
need be a dozen of every required instrument function can be deployed,
so that if only one survives the delivery, we've accomplished the
task.

Unlike those Apollo landers, every facet of these probe deployments
can be fully tested and confirmed on Earth prior to accomplishing the
real thing.

Of course, having a fully fly-by-wire robotic lander certainly would
be nice, though a wee bit spendy, and I'll suppose that of some day
our crack NASA teams will actually obtain that degree of purely rocket
powered controlled flight capability, as otherwise the next best
technology is obviously what the recent Mars probes utilized in order
to decelerate their impact. Since there's so little difference between
the thin Mars atmosphere and that of the moon, where actually the
lesser gravity of the moon should almost offset this disadvantage, so
that such a well proven method of essentially dropping objects safely
onto such a foreign surface seems almost like way-overkill for the
task of delivering such small (1 kg) probes onto and preferably as
partially impaled into the moon, though dozens of such probes might be
safely deployed by one such velocity breaking maneuver, such as
bringing everything to a vertical velocity of zero at the elevation of
1 km would certainly do wonders for alleviating the horrific impact
that's otherwise faced with the 1.6 m/s/s influence of lunar gravity.

A raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as dropped from 1 km, should impact at
roughly 0.8 t (800 kg), well within survival specifications of even
toys-R-us, which might not even represent sufficient impact for
implanting these lightweight probes.

Keeping in mind that shape and/or size is not a velocity factor, other
than spreading the impact energy over a greater or lesser zone,
whereas the Hindenburg of 242 metric tons and of representing more
than 210,000 m3 will obtain the exact same impact velocity as a
bowling ball or that of a dust-bunny, identical velocity as long as
each were introduced from the same altitude.

Of course, this is all purely "one-way", and never given a second
thought of our retrieving anything but measured data, nor of having to
sustain human or other life by shielding them from the truly horrific
elements of various lunar exposures.

I believe such small/compact probes can be engineered to survive these
sorts of deployment impacts, as well as sufficiently immune to such
horrific radiation, and of their avoiding meteorite impact, as their
odds are greatly improved upon by the sheer fact that these compact
probes represent such a small target, though eventually they'll each
be pulverised by something.

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA


"Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)" wrote in message ...
Am 11 Feb 2004 06:34:01 -0800 schrieb "Guth/IEIS~GASA":

Since there's no lunar atmosphere, just a few of those micrometorites
incoming every hour or so (plus loads of inbound dust bunnies at
perhaps 10km/s), thus essentially nothing sufficiently filtering out
the truly horrific UV spectrum. I'm wonderwing which if any UV filters
were applied, and/or included within those lenses (such as the
"UV-Sonnar 4.3/105")?

I did NOT write, that all these types of optics were used on moon's
surface. In fact was only the Biogon 60 used there; all other lenses
were dedicated for use in the CM or while space EVAs. E.g. the
UV-Sonnar was dedicated for astro-photographics, or the Tele-Tessar
for surveillance purpose out of orbit...


Thanks for your feedback. So, therefore no UV filters were applied to
the Biogon 5.6/60?


As my documentation (Engelhardt, W.: Fotografie im Weltraum 1, vwi,
Herrsching, Germany, 1980, ISBN 3-88369-011-2) 'says', no _extra_
filters were attached to the lenses - during the whole Apollo
programme (and while Mercury or Gemini). But I would not deny the
possibility, that filtering for only a special wavelength range was
maybe 'embedded' while constructing and/or building that special
lenses (some lenses were standard ones available to every normal
photographer). As a constructor, _I would_ have done that, simply to
get sharper images.

On lunar surface, with thick gloves, an astrounaut would not be able
to 'fiddle around' with attaching filters - even the aperture and
exposure time controls as well as the shutter release button got
extensions, so they could be handled easier.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)

  #19  
Old February 18th 04, 04:59 AM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Here's something other about the moon, as in "good news" and "bad
news".

Lunar 3He or He3 is just one of many energy contributions that our
moon holds, as there's energy to be derived from the LSE-CM/ISS
tethers and of the deployed tether dipole element that's potentially
reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth. If that's not a few GW worth of
tether dipole energy to being had, there's certainly the physical
tidal recession energy worth of at least 5 terawatts, plus there's
whatever solar PV/sterling energy conversions worth at least another
few MW class contributions.

Then there's the lunar core of thermal nuclear substance(s), and of
whatever other can be strip mined from the surface that's clearly been
determined as more than sufficiently radio active.

In other village idiot words of wisdom; good grief almighty folks,
don't fixate yourself upon one individual item as a go/no-go criteria.
And don't even fixate upon energy, as there's lunar basalt that can be
efficiently and of extremely high purity processed on the spot, as
into various structural fibers for assembling into composites, and of
spheres and/or ellipsoids for obtaining R-1024/m worth of insulation
and of structural cavity displacement fill.

There's lots more if you'd care to discover and hopefully contribute
to moon/lunar probes for a penny on the dollar/euro;

This is what I've recently replied to others that still can't seem to
think outside their NASA moderated box. With further regard to the
available energies of our moon, much less those of Venus, as opposed
to the likes of Mars offering us, at best, squat.

Obviously nothing is free, unless of course you happen work for and/or
along side of NASA/NSA/DoD (Halburton), as that's certainly become a
free ride if there ever was. Though as for Mars, it's been entirely
limited to whatever we an import, as otherwise there's nearly squat
worth of local energy opportunities.

I fully understand the "net" worth considerations for a number of
things.

You seem to be another entirely stuck within that "nondisclosure" box,
unable to even realize upon the enormous energy extractions possible
from just the vertical differentials (4+bar/km) that'll give any
village idiot all the energy you can possibly want. So, why is it
that, even by this fundamental basis of obtaining energy is being so
easily misunderstood, as it's physics-101.

I'll dare you or others to think upon positive solutions, on behalf of
Venus, as I'll just bet that's beyond your capabilities (whatever
those are). Surely if your Mars offers such numerous positive
solutions for sustaining life as we know it, how hard could it be for
Venus?

I'll totally agree that we'll need good speed and perhaps via your
NERVA, such as going for the likes of Europa is certainly a terrific
sort of place worth our terraforming, at least way better off than
doing anything Mars, even if we've sort of missed the boat with
respect to what others may have already been there and done that. Of
course Europa may need to have itself a thermal nuclear core like our
moon, as it's otherwise spinning itself out of control as compared to
our unique moon, as the following context and related links are going
to try and emphasize upon.

I've been thinking (all of my three brain cells worth), if there ever
was a viable other home-world worthy of sufficiently smart reptilian
folks (besides Venus), that consideration might have to become
Sirius/c, or of whatever's within the neighborhood. Though of being
nearly 9 ly distant and roughly another 66,660+ years before our solar
system once again becomes so greatly UV illuminated by the Sirius
group, thus we/Earth obviously have sufficient time to think about
doing something productive with respect to our very unique moon.

Unfortunately, the greater potential for Earth upon obtaining the
likes of lunar He3 or 3He, or most certainly of anything whatsoever ET
worthy, can just as soon get much worse, with this topic being skewed
by the likes of anti-everything contributions from the likes of OM and
of Jay Windley for starters, then there's an entire collective of
their incest cloned Borgs of "spin" and "damage control" folks backing
them up. Of course, you may soon have to suddenly switch pagan Gods in
mid-stream, as I happen believe the sort of God associated with the
likes of Sirius can seriously kick butt.

Here's yet another of my positive contributions as for doing our moon
first, instead of Mars or even Europa, though I'll certainly favor any
honest thoughts upon the likes of Venus, of just our interplanetary
communications with those surviving lizard folk heathens, of which I'm
fairly certain that the likes of GW Bush and his Halburton partners
can eventually mange to pillage with minimal risk.

"Moon, Mars, Venus, Sirius and Earth (so what's the difference?)"

Our Apollo moon only stinks to high heaven, while Mars sucks away at
critical expertise as well as limited resources while polluting
Earth's environment with thousands of tonnes more CO2, and otherwise
extracting billions away from intellectually as well as physically
starving folks. I wonder which is worse off, being a Cathar or another
NASA hugger that's intent upon skewing morality as well as physics
into the nearest space toilet.

I don't mean to be such a total pest about our unique moon but, even
those moons of Mars rotate as unsynchronized about their home world,
as do all other recorded moons, except for the one orbiting Earth.
Now, I wouldn't be having to do this if folks weren't so absolutely
opposing the notions of there being other life besides what's existing
on this Earth. I mean, give me a break, are these folks actually that
pathetic and anti-life or what?

Phobos mean radius: 21 km (13 mi)
Distance from Mars: 9,380 km (5,830 mi)
Period of Rotation: 0.3188 days

Deimos mean radius: 12 km (8 mi)
Distance from Mars: 23,460 km (14,580 mi)
Period of rotation: 1.2625 days

BTW; the mean density of Mars is: 3.95 grams/cm³
which in itself seems is a whole lot more like the composition of our
moon than Earth.

Jupiter's rotation Period: 9.92 hours
Of the 5 primary and 12 or so other moons of Jupiter, even though
there should have been if not concurrently tidal forces at play, yet
there seems to be none of these moons in synchronization with their
home world. Thus once again our unique moon seems somewhat out of step
with the trend of such things.

Another nagging consideration upon those meteorites and shards strewn
about the surface of Mars; considering the entire lack of any
atmospheric buffer zone associated with our moon, surely the lunar
surface environment must be considerably more intensified with the
same sorts of debris, as clearly similar if not worse to what was
imaged by the Mars pathfinder mission, and only recently being
confirmed by what's being imaged as we speak.

As I've stipulated on other pages, the odds of yourself being impacted
by at least a dust-bunny or a gram worth of micro meteorite of
something that's obviously unimpaired from colliding with the moon is
actually quit good, whereas I've averaged those sorts of impacts at 10
km/s, as you must realize that our moon is traveling through space at
roughly 30 km/s (+/- lunar velocity with respect to Earth) thereby
colliding with numerous debris in addition to that which is simply
targeting the moon and being accelerated at the 1.6 m/s/s as captured
by lunar gravity.

So, according to those Apollo images, that are of potentially far
better resolution than even the most recent Mars images, especially if
those quality negatives and/or transparencies were to be scanned at
9600 dpi or even 19,200 dpi, even though somehow these terrific frames
recorded such damn few meteorites and shards, but mostly that of a
desert like surface reflecting average illumination quite nicely at
roughly 55%, without any perceptible mineral colors at that. So, the
question is, which of these two sources of images (Mars/moon) is true
to life, as surely one of them is skewed.

Mars images: http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/graphics/
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/...s/80894_fu.jpg

Moon images:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...h_40_5886.html
http://home.arcor.de/yoiks/mondbilde...-107-17446.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16-107-17446.jpg

There are certainly far better and worse Apollo lunar photo examples
(depending upon what you're looking for), though you'll still need to
consistantly disregard the total lack of any blast crater, as well as
for those illumination hot spot issues, never minding that for some
unexplained reasons not even the star Sirius could have been imaged,
though apparently careful attention was always given to exclude upon
such horrifically bright stars, not to mention avoiding Venus like the
plague (Venus must have always been on the other side of the sun), and
especially avoiding any of those frames from including Earth along
with a lunar landscape with an astronaut were taboo.

Notice how the final redo issued by NASA on the as16-107-17446.jpg is
rather significantly lesser image quality than of their original, of
which the original includes that infamous "C" rock among a few other
tidbits, but also notice how the background terrain is suddenly so
entirely devoid of meteorite debris, and so nicely illuminating at
that, without ever a single dark basalt rock anywhere within the image
to be seen, much less of any hint of even a vibrant star that still
should have been recorded as a relatively dim point of illumination
(most stars being highly UV worthy and there being no atmosphere to
block/filter such intense UV photons).

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/
Notice how much reflective brightness the lunar surface continually
offers in respect to those 80% reflective moon suits, then notice how
the majority of rocks are actually brighter than their suroundings. I
could certainly go on and on but, what's the point, or perhaps this is
also where we should apply our "high standards and accountability" and
"so what's the difference" factor.

Apparently the fact that there were so few, and otherwise relatively
minimal meteorites and shards strewn about isn't supposed to suggest
anything either. Although, if you'd care to go through any number of
other Apollo images, of which we've all see more than our fair share,
please do offer your notions as to why there's so damn few of those
meteorites and shards, especially when the overall lunar surface had
been so much more so mega impact pulverised and has remained entirely
vulnerable than even Mars. The fact that the lunar surface as
portrayed by those Apollo images seemed to be so darn reflective is
yet another skewed avenue of something that's never been resolved
because, if there were the expected average of 11% reflective index
involved (darkish basalt and meteorite strewn and all), as then the
imaging of those absolutely vibrant stars would have been a rather
simple task, and even somewhat difficult to have avoided and/or pass
up, unless you were an absolute village idiot moron on drugs.

Of course, there's always been a few dozen other pesky issues, as well
as far better qualified folks having their say, where all of which
must be disregarded about their opposing those infamous Apollo
missions on more grounds than I ever imagined. So, all you'll need to
do is skew those laws of physics and to apply whatever conditional
parameters whenever necessary, and lo and behold, as in right out of
that space toilet, in spite of the total lack of whatever rational
sciences, much less independent or even technical expertise support
for those missions, somehow they all happened exactly like our NASA
stipulated, and the last time I'd checked under my pillow, the tooth
fairy left me a million bucks, plus another million of those Halburton
stock options.

Moon/lunar probes for a penny on the dollar/euro;
BTW; I believe that as of today we can easily deliver micro probes of
all sorts onto and even into the lunar surface of our moon, relatively
cheaply and obviously very quickly. This obviously would have enabled
lunar as well as Earth sciences to have been benefiting humanity, of
which we've need this sort of affordable avenue of data for several
decades worth, yet we seem to have absolutely nothing on-line or even
on the books. Seems we haven't a workable plan for actually getting
stuff safely onto the moon, much less retrieving anything, though I've
got numerous ideas and I believe workable solutions that aren't all
that spendy.

Besides all of this pathetically stupid Apollo "yes we did", "no they
didn't" crap, why don't we just cut to the chase by utilizing our
resident warlord's "so what's the difference" WMD policy, and call it
good.

Latest Sirius entry, along with graphics (Feb. 03, 2004):
****** http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-trek.htm
* http://guthvenus.tripod.com/synchronized-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-earth-venus.htm

Calling Venus;
If you're perchance the least bit interested in the truly hot prospect
of achieving interplanetary communications, as for that quest I've
added lots into this following page;
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-interplanetary.htm

BTW; There's still way more than a darn good chance of there being
other life of some sort existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Some good but difficult warlord readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND
PIRATES
http://mittymax.com/Archive/0085-Sad...andPirates.htm

David Sereda (loads of his honest ideas and notions upon UV energy),
for best impact on this one, you'll really need to barrow his video:
http://www.ufonasa.com

The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action
injury:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-what-if.htm

Some other recent file updates:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/moon-04.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-gwb-moon.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-illumination.htm
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-02.htm

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA
  #20  
Old February 18th 04, 05:03 PM
Guth/IEIS~GASA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Brad Guth is......

Instead of folks doing Mars, we should affordably do our moon, at
least robotically.

"Deploying dozens of small javelin lunar probes on the cheap"

As just for an example;
I'm thinking that of a modern day probe with a suitable battery and
compact PV cell array that's either tightly integral and/or
subsequently deploy able upon impact, that perhaps this form of micro
instrument and of it's data/transponder could be comprised of as
little as 1 kg. Of course, of your vastly superior "all-knowing" probe
can become whatever, 10 kg 1 t.

As for my initial delivery scheme, I'm thinking of involving hydrogen
or whatever gas filled balloons, actually quite a good number of
balloons within one another, and obviously not the least bit for their
buoyancy, but as for spreading out the impact to a rather sizable zone
of perhaps as much as 10 m2, as opposed to the instrument probe impact
zone representing as little as a mere 0.001 m2 (25 mm upper body with
a tapered 25 mm 5 mm spike end), and of what this relatively small
instrument/probe may be looking somewhat like a miniture spear or half
javelin.

1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

In other words, I'm suggesting that the initial impact of this small
probe can be spread conservatively by at least 1000:1, therefore if
the raw velocity at impact were to become 5 km/s, thus a 1 kg/probe
that was surrounded by another kg worth of balloons and sub/micro
balloons that would impact at an overall worth of 25,000 tonnes,
though this energy is subsequently being spread over the 10 m2, thus
the actual javelin probe body of 0.001 m2 should become merely 2.5
tonnes, though applying another 10X fudge factor makes for 25 t.

Any way you'd care to slice it, 25 tonnes worth of probe impact is
still one hell of an impact, though I tend to believe this could be
survivable, especially since the notion of delivering any decent probe
will ideally need to be firmly implanted into lunar soil and rock, the
deeper the better, as long as the upper protion remains exposed for
receiving and transmitting data.

Obviously, if this turned out being the 25 tonnes worth of impact
survival, as representing too much to ask for, then enlarging the
balloon and of increasing the numbers of the smaller balloons within
should further spread this impact, thus decelerating and taking the
brunt of the probe delivery impact. Another avenue is to lengthen upon
the spike end, at the risk of increasing the mass, as the compression
of this semi-hallow javelin will also absorb energy. Obviously the
deployment and desired free-fall vertical positioning will need to be
gyroscopic, though the probe itself could be initially set spinning at
100,000 rpm, adding somewhat a friction drilling attribute to the
probe impact.

The lunar soil (supposedly 11% reflective index and of clumping moon
dirt) should account for another degree of impact deceleration, then
of the penetrated rock and I'll assume some degree of compression of
the javelin probe tip itself should absorb whatever remains. At least
if all fails, the value per micro-probe isn't going to bust the world
bank, nor stress the technology expertise to any breaking point, as if
need be a dozen of every required instrument function can be deployed,
so that if only one survives the delivery, we've accomplished the
task.

Unlike those Apollo landers, every facet of these probe deployments
can be fully tested and confirmed on Earth prior to accomplishing the
real thing.

Of course, having a fully fly-by-wire robotic lander certainly would
be nice, though a wee bit spendy, and I'll suppose that of some day
our crack NASA teams will actually obtain that degree of purely rocket
powered controlled flight capability, as otherwise the next best
technology is obviously what the recent Mars probes utilized in order
to decelerate their impact. Since there's so little difference between
the thin Mars atmosphere and that of the moon, where actually the
lesser gravity of the moon should almost offset this disadvantage, so
that such a well proven method of essentially dropping objects safely
onto such a foreign surface seems almost like way-overkill for the
task of delivering such small (1 kg) probes onto and preferably as
partially impaled into the moon, though dozens of such probes might be
safely deployed by one such velocity breaking maneuver, such as
bringing everything to a vertical velocity of zero at the elevation of
1 km would certainly do wonders for alleviating the horrific impact
that's otherwise faced with the 1.6 m/s/s influence of lunar gravity.

1/2*M*V2 = impact energy or equivlent mass, whereas the V = 1.6 m/s/s

1 kg dropped from 1 km = .5*1e3*2.56e6 = 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes
impact)

Thus a raw javelin probe of 1 kg, as being dropped from 1 km, should
impact at roughly 1.28e3 t (1,280 tonnes), might not survive
specifications of even the most robust toys-R-us, though obviously
accommodating more than sufficient impact for implanting these
lightweight probes.

The part about the 2 kg package consisting of balloons within
balloons, surrounding the 1 kg probe, all of which impacting at 5 km/s
is still amounting to 25,000 t. At least this portion is still
correct, and I tend to believe the 1000:1 reduction in impact for the
probe within this format is also within reason, even though I haven't
researched a darn thing as to such impact absorbing packaging.
Obviously this delivery method remains way more complicated than the
simple "all stop" raw free-for-all drop from 1 km.

What caught my own attention about a previous error was in my
recalling previous references I'd made to the sorts of damage small
and even micro-meteorites can impose upon any lunar EVA, as such open
exposure to whatever is incoming is downright pesky if not lethal.

As usual, I'll likely make such math mistakes in the future, and even
some of my best effort corrections are going to be in error, though at
any time others can provide their more correctness and I'll certainly
give all the credits possible, which by the way, seems to be far more
than our NASA has ever done for you.

Keeping in mind that shape and/or size of an object is not a velocity
factor, other than spreading the impact energy over a greater or
lesser zone, whereas the Hindenburg of 242 metric tons and of
representing more than 210,000 m3 will obtain the exact same impact
velocity as a bowling ball or even that of a dust-bunny, identical
velocity as long as each were introduced from the same altitude.

Of course, this is all purely "one-way", and never given a second
thought of our retrieving anything but measured data, nor of having to
sustain human or other life by shielding them from the truly horrific
elements of various lunar exposures. Eventually there'd have to be a
manned lunar landing (first time for that as well), and next there'd
be the LSE-CM/ISS, although of all those javelin probes implanted
earlier could be collected, and/or of those still functioning left as
is.

I believe such small/compact probes can be engineered to survive these
sorts of deployment impacts, as well as sufficiently immune to such
horrific radiation, and of their avoiding meteorite impact, as their
odds are greatly improved upon by the sheer fact that these compact
probes represent such a small target, though eventually they'll each
be pulverised by something.

Regards. Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA
 




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
Brad Guth is........ edo Space Shuttle 1 December 30th 03 11:41 AM
Brad Guth is...... Nomen Nescio Space Station 0 December 26th 03 09:00 PM
Brad Guth is...... Anonymous Space Station 0 December 26th 03 08:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 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.