|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |