A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Our moon is hot, Venus is not



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 13th 06, 02:44 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not


"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...

'foolsrushin.' wrote:
Sure, Rand, but consider these descriptions of the lunar environment!
Sounds a bit like what he says!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859765.html


I read those reports, and the levels of radiation they're talking about
are _far_ lower than what Brad was claiming. I suspect that Brad may
be confusing "rads," "millirads," and "rems."


No, Brad confuses things like pictuers of Mars with Venus.

Confusing radiation units is the least of his issues.

Best bet, ignore him.



- Jordan



  #12  
Old August 13th 06, 05:08 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

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

No, Brad confuses things like pictuers of Mars with Venus.

Confusing radiation units is the least of his issues.

Best bet, ignore him.


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

Got another all-knowing fuggy stuck in your wedgy? or is it just your
head up your ass?
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #13  
Old August 13th 06, 05:18 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're
claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to
the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later!

- Jordan


Sorry, I have absolutely no honest idea as to how such folks ever walked
on our moon and lived as 100% unscaved as to telling us about it.

First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander, therefore
just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works
of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to
exist, and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well.

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #14  
Old August 13th 06, 05:47 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Mark L. Fergerson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

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


Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're
claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to
the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later!


Sorry, I have absolutely no honest idea as to how such folks ever walked
on our moon and lived as 100% unscaved as to telling us about it.


Obviously.

First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander,


How do you justify that claim?

therefore
just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works
of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to
exist,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLRV

must never have existed either then, eh, despite the fact that it's
still on display?

and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...nned_Moon.html

specifically the section L-3 must be a total fabrication too?

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.


Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA.

How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
anything at all from NASA?


Mark L. Fergerson

  #15  
Old August 13th 06, 05:57 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 09:47:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Mark L.
Fergerson" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.


Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA.

How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
anything at all from NASA?


Brad is nuts. Please don't encourage him. Just killfile him.
  #16  
Old August 13th 06, 07:34 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Mark L. Fergerson" wrote in message
news:iJIDg.6997$Mz3.2626@fed1read07

Ok, Brad, then how did the ten astronauts who actually walked on Luna's
surface, two of whom stayed there for about an Earth-day, survive their
experience unharmed? If the radiation levels were as high as you're
claiming, I doubt that they would have lived long enough to return to
the Earth, yet several of them are still alive today, decades later!


First of all, they had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander,


How do you justify that claim?

Got any such scaled to suit Earth gravity of their fly-by-rocket
prototypes, as representing their essential step by step R&D to show us?

Got anything that's of fly-by-rocket that doesn't involve momentum
reaction wheels?

Secondly, our Saturn 5 at nearly 30% inert GLOW and somehow having
accomplished nearly a 60:1 ratio of rocket per payload so quickly into
getting such horrific tonnage into orbiting our moon is a wee bit more
than impressive by even modern day rocket-science.

therefore
just getting to/from that physically dark sucker is still in the works
of getting R&D applied, as not even a viable test prototype seems to
exist,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLRV

Infomercial-science and of those hocus-pocus conditional laws of physics
doen't count.

and that goes for those AI/robotic Russian landers as well.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...nned_Moon.html

specifically the section L-3 must be a total fabrication too?

YES! not that they too didn't try like hell to actually pull it off,
just as we'd made the all-our effort of accomplishing the same.

So, why don't you folks and all-knowing wizards impress the rest of us
village idiots by way of telling and showing us how such a daunting task
was accomplish, and without using anything from your NASA/Apollo koran.


Kinda difficult to do that without referencing NASA.

That's just it, whereas it should not be all that difficult since every
bit of the required R&D and of the actual items sent on those missions
was commercially accomplished outside of NASA, as somewhat delivered to
their perpetrated cold-war hands COD.

How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
anything at all from NASA?

Already been there and done that. Where the heck have you folks been
all of these years?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #17  
Old August 13th 06, 07:48 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

:: How about you show any of your claims to be true without referencing
:: anything at all from NASA?

: "Brad Guth"
: Already been there and done that. Where the heck have you folks been
: all of these years?

How about just one claim that struck my curiosity.
You recently mentioned that "the moon is dark". How do you establish
that, since I can look up in the sky and see that it is not dark. Indeed,
to photograph the moon from here, and see any of its features, I found I
needed to use basic daylight exposure. F16 at one over the film speed,
more or less approximately.

So, what you mean "dark", kemosabe? How dark, how do you know,
and why didn't my camera know? I'm pretty sure NASA
hasn't been jiggering the settings on my camera.

I don't intend to contradict you, I'm just curious.
Referencing a specific old posting where you explained it before is fine.
By either message ID or google URL would be most convenient.


Similarly, to folks in general, has anybody used an IR meter to judge
moon surface temperatures from here, personally? Is it doable with
off-the-shelf equipment? Especially if it's possible to track
dayside/nightside differences. Just wondering, you understand folks.


I also wonder how NASA spoofed the folks in Australia that picked up the
transmissions from the moon directly. I saw interviews with actual people
from the radio telescope. Hm... no, nevermind that one; doubtless NASA
just chased them all down and bribed them, or replaced them with pod
people or something; there were only a few people actually working at
the telescope personally. But I do still wonder why I should not believe
the evidence of my own eyes.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
  #18  
Old August 13th 06, 10:30 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


How about just one claim that struck my curiosity.
You recently mentioned that "the moon is dark". How do you establish
that, since I can look up in the sky and see that it is not dark. Indeed,
to photograph the moon from here, and see any of its features, I found I
needed to use basic daylight exposure. F16 at one over the film speed,
more or less approximately.

Obviously you can't hardly read, and you obviously don't quite
understand about reflected light, nor can your PC bother to taking a
look at the moon and Jupiter as being in the same frame, and obviously
you wouldn't dare to look at those NASA/Apollo official images of our
deep sooty brownish moon with Earth in the same image.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg

So, what you mean "dark", kemosabe? How dark, how do you know,
and why didn't my camera know? I'm pretty sure NASA
hasn't been jiggering the settings on my camera.

The moon is roughly 0.072 albedo, which is relatively open coal pit
dark.

I don't intend to contradict you, I'm just curious.
Referencing a specific old posting where you explained it before is fine.
By either message ID or google URL would be most convenient.

Search for images of moon and Jupiter, or moon and Mars, or moon and
Venus, and so forth. Or, go into most any one of the official archives
of NASA/Apollo and go fish.
Go here if you would you like to see a few of those better examples:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/

Similarly, to folks in general, has anybody used an IR meter to judge
moon surface temperatures from here, personally? Is it doable with
off-the-shelf equipment? Especially if it's possible to track
dayside/nightside differences. Just wondering, you understand folks.

At certain IR spectrums, the moon reflects such IR upon average at
roughly 0.33 or 33%. At far IR, I believe it gets better than 0.5 or
50% reflective.

I also wonder how NASA spoofed the folks in Australia that picked up the
transmissions from the moon directly.

Think "chapel bell" S-band transponders. It works every time for me.

I'm still thinking that we had managed to turn our Apollo crews around
within the LL-1 zone, which is still testy and potentially lethal unless
having only spent a few hours that close to our gamma and hard-X-ray
moon.

But I do still wonder why I should not believe the evidence of my own
eyes.

Up until 7 years ago, I too was every bit as snookered and/or
dumbfounded into believing in all of that NASA/Apollo crapolla. Welcome
to my village idiot club.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #19  
Old August 13th 06, 10:54 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Wayne Throop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not

: "Brad Guth"
: The moon is roughly 0.072 albedo, which is relatively open coal pit dark.

Well... no, actually that's not quite what it means, but at least
I know what you mean; you mean the moon reflects comparatively
little light, and venus comparatively more. Thanks.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw
  #20  
Old August 13th 06, 11:11 PM posted to rec.org.mensa,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Our moon is hot, Venus is not


"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:2f3eb871c55b7a3e3a2cdf834e897a0c.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in
message ink.net

No, Brad confuses things like pictuers of Mars with Venus.

Confusing radiation units is the least of his issues.

Best bet, ignore him.


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


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

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


Got another all-knowing fuggy stuck in your wedgy? or is it just your
head up your ass?
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SimplyMagic/TightFit.jpg
-
Brad Guth


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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM.


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.