Moon Hoax people

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/transorbital-99a.html
Actually it's already is 6 years behind schedule. That's almost as much
time as between John Glenn's first orbital mission and the official
Moon landings! How long will it take for the true believers to figure
it out.... they never will.
At its closest point during the mapping phase, TrailBlazer will be only
100 km (~62 mi.) from the surface of the moon, that's as high as the
Rocket plane that Branson is conning people into believing it's a
spacecraft, goes.

loote,
I totally agree that our NASA/Apollo fiasco sucks and blows big-time.
Their conditional laws of physics are a joke, and their badly outdated
rocket-science and of the supposed hard-science related to supposedly
walking upon the moon simply isn't there to behold.

However, there's certainly more of the same old mainstream status quo
flak that never ends, much like the collateral damage and carnage of
the innocent that's orchestrated entirely by our warm and fuzzy
resident warlord(GW Bush) and of his incest cloned army of brown-nosed
minions seems to never end.

This next part is about laser range-finding that pertains to our dark
and naked moon, as in with or w/o retroreflectors, or is this actually
with the reflective aid of vaporised aluminum as per having been impact
deposited upon our rather salty and otherwise dark and nasty moon?
-

Dear lord/wizard (aka all 'World Fact Book' knowing) William Mook,
William Mook; point your 4 mile diameter beam somewhere else
on the moon - to a place where the retroreflectors are not.
Then count the photons coming back. I'll tell you something -
you'll wait a long time -because you'll get nothing back sir.
That pathetic statement alone peggs yourself as an even bigger LLPOF
moron of a village idiot than I'd thought. Therefore, "your analysis
is a load of horse**** - and if you don't know it - you're insane. Go
see a therapist about your issues. Don't post here."

I do appreciate your efforts that are in vain, as per MIB limited to
suggesting that only via the retroreflectors that were placed upon our
moon in person are of what's reflecting photons. It seems however, in
spite of what your bigoted mindset wants of us folks to think, it seems
that low power satellite range/altitude finding lasers have been in use
for more than a decade (Clementine 9 mJ Green @532 nm @4 mr), as having
no such retroreflector basis by which they've operated as just
perfectly fine and dandy. Sorry Sir Mook, I didn't buy it as of 6
years ago and lo and behold, I'm still not buying it. Although, prior
to 6 years ago I'd bought into just about everything our NASA/Apollo
and their pagan government had to say. However, for benefit of the
doubt, I've given this laser range thing another consideration.

BTW; when I've previously stipulated the obvious that our moon's
surface was very/extremely dark and nasty, that wasn't per say of each
and every cm2 by cm2, whereas upon most such naked places there are
more than a few chunks of glassified and/or sufficiently white
substances that'll reflect photons quite nicely. A recent crater can
offer a good amount of extra albedo area that's worth 50%, therefore
hosting glassified chunks of nearly mirror-like substances wouldn't be
unexpected. Basically, millions of m2 of what's even 12% reflective on
average beats your less than m2 retroreflector that's somehow remained
squeaky clean and as such perhaps at best 99% reflective. Thus laser
photons as would be reflected off any given impacted landing (aka
crater) site shouldn't be all that dark and nasty. Actually, the
remains of impact vaporised aluminum ott to do quite nicely.

Just like there's still no ice-in-space as hard-science, out of all the
spendy infomercial hype and wag-thy-dogs to death, as to NASA's best
ever spin of their never ending quest on behalf of their perpetrated
cold-war spin and damage control, there's still no supportive
hard-science that retroreflectors have ever existed as to their having
been placed upon our moon by brave folks in moonsuits, as well as we
still have zilch worth of fly-by-rocket documented R&D or any worth of
AI/robotic (US or USSR) capability that's viable as of today. However,
for less than half the volume and a tenth the mass is where a powerful
robotic strobe transponder having a +/- 1 degree of focus that could
have been easily established and for all to easily see with the naked
eye, especially if that not so little illuminator as our lunar situated
transponder beacon source were capable of being given 100+ Joules,
whereas a 0.1 ms pulse = 1 MJ.

topic: Venus/Moon - to Terraform
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...097cd6ce7a61b2

Here's one more time for good measure;
Instead of the 532 nm(green) laser cannon shots, a UV laser of 337 nm
might become rather interesting, especially at good wattage and 300
microradians (0.3 mr). Actually, there should become a few
secondary/recoil (near-blue) returning photons, and otherwise of usable
laser applications up to the UV-b(315 nm) spectrum where the
atmospheric absorbson starts getting the best of such things, making
the likes of UV-c(280 nm) somewhat laser useless since so much of what
280 nm or shorter wavelenght gets absorbed within our upper atmosphere,
whereas otherwise the higher the frequency and/or the lower the nm
number the better off for getting through our atmosphere and for
accomplishing the most photons delivered on target within the least
amount of added divergence is what it's going to take. It's certainly
unfortunate that such supposed retroreflectors were not even band-pass
coated.

ABLs (aka YAL-1A) being mostly mid/deep IR(1315 nm) tend to suffer from
atmospheric induced divergence (operating at 40,000' somewhat minimizes
that situation), thus would also be the case with the initial lunar IR
ranging, and still remains as a contributing divergence factor with
their subsequent visible/green (532 nm) lunar ranging efforts.

SMART-1 has the IR Laser Link (aka laser-radar) capability, designed
primarily for testing a terrestrial to satellite data link, however
having being as close as it's been to the moon and having flown
directly over those supposed Apollo landing sites hasn't materialized
one extra photon that's identified as having been derived from any of
the multiple Apollo retroreflectors.

Even the Clementine spacecraft was 3-axis stabilized in lunar orbit via
reaction wheels, having a 4 mr 532 nm laser beam/radar (LIDAR system)
that accomplished not one Apollo reflector result. Having a 171 mJ
IR(1064 nm) and 9 mJ Green(532 nm) pulse driven with a 4 millirad
divergence is sufficiently impressive, and for as close as it got, it
should have worked like a dream, but it didn't.

For the task of getting the laser beam away from Earth represents an
optical absorbson factor as well as a focus distortion that's somewhat
of a divergence gauntlet that's anything but stable, whereas refractive
atmospheric turbulence will randomly deflect and thus diverge that
beam. An extremely small added amount of divergence will cause a great
deal of increased spot size as illuminating upon the moon, thus
contributing fewer photons per retroreflector, while giving lots more
photons upon the raw surface to reflect..

The Basics of Lunar Ranging
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
"the turbulent atmosphere distorts the beam, imparting a divergence"
"Atmosphere causes beam to diverge by one arcsecond or more"
"at the moon, 1 arcsecond is 1.8 km, so the beam is about 2 km across"

Since a 2 km illumination zone is about as good as it gets, and perhaps
a 20 km illuminated zone is nearly as bad off as it gets, and there's
certainly no difference in the range accuracy as taken off moon-rock
and/or moon-dust reflected photons as opposed to the supposed
retroreflector contributed photons, therefore there's no possible way
of telling which of the few returning photons is which. In other
words, there's been no published science recordings of such photons to
share that any independent researcher could possibly identify a given
photon or any batch of photons as being specifically retroreflector
contributed or not, especially since m2 by m2 the lunar surface is
hardly offering anything but a constant as far as the albedo is
considered. A somewhat recent crater might just as easily exceed 30%,
whereas a darkish carbon/soot plus having titanium and iron dust
covered zone of basalt might get down to reflecting as little as 2~3%,
thus we have greater than a 10:1 ratio right off the bat to contend
with.

The Aristarchus crater is offering nearly the brightest spot on our
salty Moon, having by way of some observations a maximum floor
brightness of 50% and otherwise 20~25+% for the bulk of the associated
area, thereby indicating this as a fairly recent crater that hasn't
become covered in the usual composite layers of carbon/soot blended
with basalt, iron and titanium dust.

Even if the given retroreflector amounted to a full m2, the minimal 2
km illuminated zone makes the ratio of 3.142e6:1 look downright
pathetic. Actually, the original combined 100X retroreflecting
apertures amounted to 0.1134 m2, thus the photon look-see ratio is more
like a minimum of 28e6:1 of whatever deflects exactly as though off the
raw surface, with the largest of such retroreflectors at 300 apertures
giving 0.34 m2 is still at best 9.25e6:1 if there's no excessive
atmospheric distortion factors nor jitter involved. In fact,
considering that a good many of those supposed Kodak moments upon the
surface as having depicted as a somewhat natural surface
retroreflective glass like nature, that which oddly reflected at nearly
75% (almost as intense as having reflected off their 80+% white
moonsuits), with the background for as far as the unfiltered Kodak eye
could see as having a reflectance of 55+% (that's along with their
having the polarised optical benefit which if anything should have
reduced that surface reflectance). Would you like a few official image
links?

BTW No.2; if the moon only offers but a thin layer of nearly colorless
(portland cement and cornmeal like) substance that so nicely clumps
with such terrific surface tension for suppoeting each 375 cm2
moonboot, yet isn't otherwise the least bit electrostatic or even dark
and nasty, therefore either the moon simply hasn't been around for all
that long, or else, perhaps some of that 2400 km/s solar wind is what
kept blowing the dust away (as in clean off the moon). At least if you
exclude the surface EVA obtained images, and if sticking with the 10X
telephoto shots from orbit is where the areas and amounts of dust seems
nearly insurmountable. Would you care to review a few of those
official image links?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...unartaurid.htm
December 23, 2005: NASA scientists have observed an explosion on the
moon. The blast, equal in energy to about 70 kg of TNT, occurred near
the edge of Mare Imbrium (the Sea of Rains) on Nov. 7, 2005, when a
12-centimeter-wide (900 cm3) meteoroid slammed into the ground
traveling 27 km/s.

"ground-shaking impacts could kick up moondust, possibly over a wide
area. Moondust is electrostatically charged and notoriously clingy."

BTW No.3; the vast majority of such impacts have gone unrecorded, and
of those being caused by modus items of less than 128 cm3 are seldom if
ever noticed unless via earthshine and/or having been exceeding 72
km/s. However, a 100+km/s impactor from a nice little palm/finger
sized rock of 96 cm3 might become sufficiently recorded upon impacting
a fully solar illuminated surface.

The entire topic of moon-dust and of it's depth or lack thereof is
rather odd, especially since the moon represents more than enough
gravity that would have collected upon most anything that's passing by
within 2r(1738 km off the deck G = 0.40575 and such items have to be
moving better than 1.25 km/s in order to avoid being sucked in) that
should have sooner or later arrived, and otherwise of just whatever's
running into or being run over by the moon has got to have amounted to
a minimum of a micron per year, whereas a billion years is worth a full
1000 m that's not going to hardly compact upon itself within that sort
of a 1/6th gravity of a bone dry vacuum, of alternating between
freeze-dried and/or scorching hotter than hell environment. I'd say a
surface tension holding capacity of 5 g/cm2 is about as good as it gets
until you sink out of sight. Obviously there's sufficient bedrock
and/or of crater deformations plus secondary shards that should be too
steep to have retained all that much dust, although of all rock and
terrain crevasses should be nearly chuck full to their brims. Would
you care to review a few official image links?

Which is it; is our moon extremely old or is it relatively new to our
vicinity?
How about considering that it's both quite old as well as new to being
our moon?

The really good secondary news to all of this remains with the supposed
better than 62:1 of such badly outdated rocket/payload deploymants.
Whereas instead of the 764:1 of the Lunar Prospector that took nearly
half again as long getting itself there, if such Apollo missions
actually transpired as reported is the best ever proof positive that a
32:1 ratio of getting microsatellites deployed should become doable as
of today, especially with the h2o2/c3h40 LBRs and the new and improved
LO2/LH2 composite mid/upper stage, plus taking advantage of those
really nifty disposible composite solids as getting the overall inert
mass down to demanding less than half the ratio of what the Apollo
missions had to deal with, and especially if we're in no such hurry for
getting those microsatellites there should more than make up for the
remaining issues.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

I'm continually amazed that this person can type so much and say so
little. Even when he does say something, it's the same thing over and
over and over again.

Here's a tip for you Brad:

1-800-MENTALHELP

Matt Wiser; He never raises the issues those who respond to him raise,
and just babbles about his conspiracy theories and then insults those
who disagree with him.
You know that's not at all true. In fact, even I can extract all sorts
of constructive criticisms that others have posted, whereas I totally
accepted their mainstream status quo flak, as per my having kindly
responded in that I'd offered in my response to anyone that shares an
honest notion or thought that's based upon the regular laws of physics,
plus having at least a gram worth of hard-science and/or that of equal
or better observationology examples backing it up. Of course, I've had
to totally accept the hard proof-positive examples as to what the
deployment of Lunar Prospector accomplished, as being pretty gosh darn
hard to ignore as representing the sorts of modern and thus efficient
rocket-science truth and nothing but the truth, as the same goes for
appreciating the Ariane-5 @780t ECA = 9.6t to GSO which equals 81:1.

The loon is of the type that goes "It didn't happen the way I thought it
did, so it never happened"
This is also not true because, I'm stuck with using your own laws of
physics and that of your own published rocket-science, plus what little
documented (essentially nonexistent) fly-by-rocket of whatever's
AI/robotic or manned worth of expertise that you folks have to share.
Besides, I never once stipulated that it "never happened", just that it
never transpired to the degree or as per the way NASA/Apollo has
infomercial published and otherwise promoted their one and only side of
the story.

"I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and if you disagree with me, you're
either brainwashed or part of the conspiracy!"
Unless you've got proof that's other than the scripted infomercial
class of disinformation and of such evidence exclusions as entirely
orchestrated and/or moderated to death by the pagan cultism of your
NASA/Apollo, whereas if you're arguing as based entirely without a
shred of independent expertise nor any other verifyiable worth of
proving squat on behalf of NASA/Apollo, in which case I'll keep asking
those silly questions and telling folks of whatever I happen to think
transpired. Besides, what is it about the likes of whatever I so
happen to think took place, as being such a nasty problem for the likes
of yourself?

According to MI6/NSA~CIA spook "Me", that which the likes of your
Usenet "Pat Flannery", "Art Deco" and even lord/wizard "William Mook"
would have to totally agree with whatever the likes of spook "Me" had
to contribute; such as "Me's" following comment deserved that I return
the topic favor with all of the love and affection that I could muster.
:stupid and/or meaningless questions which are irrelevant
:and/or answered with a 5-minute search on Google .

So, of whatever's Saturn-V ice-loading and of various mass totals are
"irrelevant" issues in rocket-science, just like their rocket/payload
ratios and of the substantial inert/dry mass factors are supposedly
"irrelevant", especially if such info pertains to anything NASA/Apollo.
Therefore you folks can't be the least bit bothered to so much as
answer upon these five relatively simple questions that are NOT as your
disinformation and evidence exclusionary crapolla stipulates available
within any "5-minute search on Google". Why am I not the least bit
surprised that the CEV fiasco is going to take considerably more than a
best all-out effort of any modern day 60:1 ratio that probably can't
hardly manage GSO, and that's with disposable composite SRMs plus using
every other fly-by-rocket trick in the book.

In addition to all of the pretentious arrogance and that of the usual
ongoing intellectual as well as biological bigotry as to global
warming, of the perpetrated cold-war(s), and otherwise as to what folks
obviously can't accept as to the 6-Day war and USS LIBERTY fiasco, or
that of the "KAL007 Coldwar Mystery", "911" or "WMD", and since no one
that's taken seriously within thus Usenet from hell really gives a
flying hocky puck as to the reality of global warming or even as to our
local environmental and badly sluffing geophysics fiasco plus ocean
thermal expansion factors that's adding further environmental insult to
injury. As such, I'll add five simple questions for the old
NASA/Apollo (aka MI6/NSA~CIA) gipper of brown-nosed minions and spooks
to answer: (though bet they can't)

Because of what LO2/LH2 represents, and that we're talking about
substantial surfaces that were sustained well below freezing, whereas
at least for most all of the first two stages worth of the Saturn-V
launch phase had to have been packing along a considerable amount of
ice tonnage. After all, the Saturn-V(Saturn 5) was essentially having
to provide an absolutely impressive 2-stage deployment of getting
considerable tonnage into LEO, whereas in addition to the horrific
inert/dry mass, some of that initial tonnage had to have represented a
substantial amount of ice loading. Aparently their LOX/RP-1
application was actually nearly twice as good as reported, thus no need
for LRB's of h2o2/c3h4o or even h2o2/RP-1.

Why is there no information as to the amount of Saturn-V ice loading?

Why are the gross liftoff tonnage figures reported as all over the
place?

Why is there even a kg difference as to the mass of each phase and of
the totals?

Why is the tonnage and velocity as having been supposedly deployed past
LL-1 not perfectly clear as a "Chapel Bell"?

Why is there no mention whatsoever of LL-1 or ME-L1 or EM-L2 as
associated rocket-science or of potential satellite station-keeping
information tagged along with anything that's NASA or Apollo?
-
Brad Guth