Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message news:400b547d$0$41120

Gregg Easterbrook is at it again.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101...sterbrook.html

I wonder if this column is as error filled as his shuttle OpEds? (I
haven't
read this one, yet).

Jon

---

Error #1:

Easterbrook: "Rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars to hurl tons
toward Mars using current technology, why not take a decade-or two decades,
or however much time is required-researching new launch systems and advanced
propulsion?"

GWB: "Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020. ... With the
experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take
the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds
beyond." [some estimates put the hoped-for Mars mission around 2030 -- over
*two and a half decades away*]

Additionally, the Prometheus project is doing just such related research
today.

---

Easterbrook is absolutely *infamous* for not checking his facts before
publication -- and this is well-known and commented on publicly even by his
*friends*. It throws into question what this guy is basing his
pronouncements on. Are all "Brookings Scholars" this sloppy on such key
points?

---

Misleading statement:

Easterbrook: "And Mars as a destination for people makes absolutely no sense
with current technology."

This is true. Did anyone claim that we'd go to Mars in 2030 with 2004
technology?

---

Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."

Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

---

Easterbrook: "Space-exploration proponents deride as lack of vision the
mention of technical barriers or the insistence that needs on Earth come
first. Not so. The former is rationality, the latter the setting of
priorities."

The pittance that NASA receives compared to that of social programs is a
drop in the bucket. The priorities have already been set. If we want the
Mars part of the vision to be accomplished, it will require that
breakthroughs and cost reductions be made during the lunar phase, or else it
will be canceled before it starts. The cost figures cited by Easterbrook and
others are thus invalid.

---

Easterbrook: "The drive to explore is part of what makes us human, and
exploration of the past has led to unexpected glories. Dreams must be
tempered by realism, however. For the moment, going to Mars is hopelessly
unrealistic."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program.
Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the
costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious
missions. ... With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will
then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to
Mars and to worlds beyond."

---

Easterbrook: "... which calls for "reprogramming" some of NASA's present
budget into the Mars effort, might actually lead to a reduction in such
unmanned science-the one aspect of space exploration that's working really
well."

Did he not listen to the President?:

Bush: "Robotic missions will serve as trailblazers -- the advanced guard to
the unknown."

---

In article , Jon Berndt wrote:

Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."

Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

It's big, but not insanely so.

Mars Direct is specced for two HLV lanches per crew, or about 300t to
LEO. The Mars Reference Mission, for comparison, seems to want three per
crew plus additional hardware (eg, a common surface lab). It assumes
200t-to-LEO capacity, though; Mars Direct works on 140t.

The first Mars flight under the Reference Mission will take three
dedicated launches, plus a possible lab, but then there's also the next
two bits of hardware flying out as backups/staging for Ares 2.

So, depending on how generous you're being, anything from six to twelve
hundred tonnes to LEO there.

--
-Andrew Gray

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."
Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

It's big, but not insanely so.

Moreover, the more generous you are with mass to LEO, the easier it
becomes to design the vehicles that are going to Mars. It's very likely
that you could get substantial net savings on a modest program of Mars
expeditions by doubling the mass into LEO, despite the extra launch costs.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Easterbrook: "Present systems for getting from Earth's surface to low-Earth
orbit are so fantastically expensive that merely launching the 1,000 tons or
so of spacecraft and equipment a Mars mission would require ..."
Where did he get his 1,000 tons figure? Does this sound right?

It's big, but not insanely so.

Moreover, the more generous you are with mass to LEO, the easier it
becomes to design the vehicles that are going to Mars. It's very likely
that you could get substantial net savings on a modest program of Mars
expeditions by doubling the mass into LEO, despite the extra launch costs.
--
Unfortunately, mass minimization is virtually a religion at NASA. They
would never believe anything so heretical.


MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

I thought this topic was about why we should NOT goto Mars?

Good grief folks, don't we have enough problems right here on Earth
that we can't presently afford to fix. Seems like adding several
hundred billion into another space toilet adventure is just a wee bit
unwise, if not downright pathetically stupid. The ESE or bust stands a
better chance.

Moon He3/3He is there for the taking, our wonderful GW Bush is super
terrific at such taking. For that alone I'll back the Moon or Bust
notions long before there'll be any sympathy for the likes of a frozen
and irradiated to death Mars.

Truth is in the eyes of the blind beholder, as snookered Americans
perhaps. Though the Moon is apparently all ours for the taking, and
take He3 we well.


The GW Bush moon or bust; or just how incredibly happenstance is our
moon?


Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden,
there's our nifty moon, just sitting there, overloaded with He3 or
3He.

Sorry about the initial overload, but trust me, it's worth it.

The absolute truth(s) about history, as well as for what's current and
of what's to come, has been and well continue being skewed in order to
suit those in power, much like religion and of evolution is all about
lies, of liars telling whatever lies suit their hidden agendas and
ulterior motives. Whereas a better form of government, and thereby
science, would obviously be truth; go fish!

For an example; pure evolution isn't worth squat up against
terraforming, only as an afermarket adaptation in order to survive in
spite of mistakes made by your creator, DNA/RNA or whatever. Such as,
I'd certainly evolve myself along and adapt if my planet were going
greenhouse, though to listen to the pro-NASA folks with regard to
anything Venus, that's just not going to happen, even though for
perfectly odd reasons (I think money and job security), just the
opposit seems to apply towards Mars.

Unfortunately, much like Hitler, or much worse being the Pope/Cathar
fiasco, the GW Bush space initiative represents yet another for-real
threat to humanity, and of whatever natural evolution isn't going to
fix that unless evolution somehow manages the extinction of GW Bush on
behalf of humanity, as otherwise the future threat is as real as his
personal war in Iraq, and it'll soon get as bloody as need be. Thereby
the Bush space initiative is a thoroughly bad notion, although the
notion of going for our moon on behalf of humanity isn't such a bad
notion, in fact it's a darn good idea that's way past due.

There's been the rather unfortunate tit for tats that created the
likes of 9/11 and of flight-800, plus another ongoing and rather pesky
and costly war in Iraq, all because of Salem bin Laden and of the
close business associations with our resident warlord "GW Bush". It's
all about the hoarding of energy as well as future applied
technologies, possibly even ET technology. It's absolutely imperative
as to keeping this oil off the spot market, especially of oil that's
been outside the American cartel.

Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden,
there's a light at the end of this tunnel.

It seems a few too many folks have overlooked an important truth or
self right, that of following a lying ******* and hiding within a
collective of energy sucking Borgs is obviously become the moral right
of every snookered American, yet no one owes us that right.


The GW Bush moon; or just how incredibly happenstance is our moon?

At least the ulterior lunar focus for the moment should draw deeply
our dastardly attentions away from Cuba, if nothing else it'll drain
whatever reserves for NSA/DoD agendas, while giving us folks a great
deal to think about, and of others to worry about.

The GW Bush moon-base odds are actually relatively **** poor. Just for
starters, we all realize that our resident warlord "GW Bush" lied as
usual (covering some privet agenda plus whatever ulterior motives),
such as about all those WMD, just like those of his educational "high
standards and accountability" lies, that's only been superseded by his
ultimate "so what's the difference" policy (he must have been
referring to all those dead Iraqi souls that don't matter, as well as
the Trade Towers fiasco that he and of his close Salem bin Laden
business partner had supposedly absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with). Notice how the "all knowing" Dr. H.K. has vanished into thin
air ever since 9/11.

Just because our moon has become the most recent GW Bush topic of the
hour, I'm not switching myself from the far greater importance of
discoveries on Venus over to any moon tactic for the mere sport of it,
as I've been there and done that for a good year's worth of trying to
focus folks (snookered fools) away from the ESE fiasco, over to the
obtainable and doable LSE-CM/ISS alternative, as of what the moon
offers is simply an incredibly terrific gateway to other worlds, such
as Mars and Venus, as well as for providing Earth sciences plus a
bloody jackpot worth of He3/3eH energy that's just sitting there,
waiting to being scooped up and shipped off to mother Earth.

Speaking just a little off topic; of other life within our universe
that doesn't have to continually lie; Sirius is certainly not only
within our universe, but I believe 80,000 years ago it was situated
damn close by.

Within the following rant, I've stipulated upon quite a number of
"what ifs" pertaining greatly to other life on Venus, among
accomplishing a few essential lunar things along the way. Elsewhere
are links to specific LSE-CM/ISS issues, although you'll have to
disconnect from your Borg collective before reading such, as otherwise
the collective may have to terminate your node, and that could hurt
worse than the "Blue Screen of Death".

"Sirius, Earth, Moon and Venus, preferably without GW Bush"

In that order, and in that priority.

In other words, first came Sirius, then we manage to screw up Earth
(almost got that one nailed), then onto our moon for a little He3/3He
snatching, and finish off our supper with the pillaging of Venus. We
don't much have to include the likes of Mars because, it's way to
spendy as well as too CO2 generating upon Earth as for sustaining any
significant to/from enterprise of pillaging, and besides it's already
a thoroughly dead horse (not that folks hadn't managed to live there
once upon a time), except for the remains of some highly
advanced/mutant microbes of which sub-freezing them into dry-ice and
of irradiating those to death probably hasn't quite serialized their
innards, and of those pesky diehard Mars microbes (in our infinite
wisdom or lack thereof), we'll likely be bringing those suckers back
to Earth via some future probe in order to prove how pathetically
stupid we actually are, so go figure.

Never to fear; as if it should perchance turn out that I'm the least
bit wrong about the sanity or perhaps utter insanity, of some folks
going to Mars that is, as then I'll simply impose our resident
warlord's approved "so what's the difference" policy. As certainly
whatever's left of Earth's humanity wont be any worse off for ware,
after all, of my previous efforts at stipulating "I told you so" about
how thoroughly frozen and irradiated to death Mars is, if that simply
hasn't sunk in, nor about how little free energy awaits those arriving
at Mars, but what the hell do I know?

If I were as dumbfounded, and as much of a total moron ******* as our
resident warlord, I guess I'd certainly have Earth's humanity headed
for the likes of Mars. After all, from all of the previous probe
information and of what's new, well, there really isn't anything new,
other than it's still damn cold and thoroughly irradiated to death, as
well as sufficiently strewn with all the expected meteorites and
shards, and as always, being of the most time consuming and spendy as
all get out for just getting there, much less for the task of our
retrieving anything.

Our Unique Moon;
It's rather unfortunate how freaking little we seem to know about our
extremely unique moon, of why it's even where it is, and of it's mass
being so entirely different than Earth, yet thermal nuclear heated
from within and of so influencing Earth in such an entirely positive
sort of way, as well as somewhat intentionally contributing to our
well being as a human race, yet it's been taking advantage of tidal
forces so as to insure that it's never going to come crashing down,
not in a trillion-billion years, not even if we devised a way of
pulling out 5 terawatts continuously between us, as that's merely one
form of unique force that's been so special about our uniquely
synchronized moon.

This one-of-a-kind moon offers us an incredibly stable gravity-well
null point, as an ideal LSE-CM/ISS accommodation that's obviously
situated between Earth and the moon, at roughly 84% of the distance
from Earth, or 16% of the distance towards Earth, with a mere 2.25%
variance at that. It's also the one and only recorded moon that's
rotating itself in perfect harmony, as in absolute synchronization
with it's mother World. All and all, that's better than rolling
different dice on every shot and getting exactly the very same 4&3 as
7's a million times in a row. Not such bad odds.

I mean, how incredibly happenstance is that?

Finding water on the moon isn't such a big factor. With Earth's global
warming, expedited along by GW Bush himself, we'll soon have way more
water than you can possibly shake a flaming stick at, and thankfully
today we've got numerous ways of robotically delivering terrific
amounts of said water to the moon. Actually sending it as pure h2o2
would do lunar and LSE-CM/ISS operations a lot more good. In the good
old days of Apollo, if speaking of a one-way ticket, we could deliver
36,000 lbs worth of whatever, whereas today that figure should be
72,000 lbs worth. And BTW; the lunar environment is absolutely ideal
for that water being in the stabile form of frozen h2o2, whereas
receiving whatever He3 infusions couldn't hurt.

The next issue or topic of worth is that of Venus, of it's environment
being what it is, greenhouse hot and nasty, though not by a long shot
being outside the ballpark of supporting intelligent life, unless
you're only considering upon the pathetic slim-mold based forms of
bigoted life that's here on Earth, especially of those that can no
longer think for themselves, having to depend upon their pagan worship
of skewed as well as conditional laws of physics, as well as reliance
upon numerous toilet bowl morals, as such being easily snookered and
thereby representing the crude forms of life that can't hardly survive
here on Earth without doing far more harm than good, much like dumb
and dumber except on steroids.

Fortunately, the thick and robust atmosphere of Venus is simply chuck
full of benefits, as well as raw energy via thermal as well as
powerful kinetics from just their vertical differentials, then there
are simply loads of surface geothermals and of most likely a crust
that holding onto all sorts of mineral deposits. Those relatively cool
nighttime clouds contain megatonnes of H2SO4, thus H2O, thereby all
sorts of chemical and subsequent reaction cocktails of various
outcomes are possible. With said energy and of the sorts of natural
element resources available, only an absolute idiot moron couldn't
make a go of it.

Of course, it only adds further insult to all the previous injuries by
way of my uncovering a rather significant group of structures, of a
significant community that's way too rational, as in being potentially
life supportive functional as having been established as artificial
(as in man made or perhaps more likely lizard folk made), hardly being
the least bit natural unless those pesky laws of physics as well as
for gravity took a hike for at least a few hundred years, which
according to our NASA community of "all knowing" Borg wizards is
absolutely suggesting what must have happened, somewhat like why all
those Apollo moon pictures are so skewed and why their lunar
reflective index was so incredibly bright, as well as for why there's
so few meteorites and of their shards strewn about, much less there
being any recent contributions of micro-meteorites to deal with, nor
is there more radiation exposure than for taking a distant walk around
Chernobyl.

Of another keen interest is that of Sirius may not be so happenstance,
though 80,000 years ago it was certainly darn close, thus extremely
bright and most likely the biggest thing in our sky, bar none, as in
illumination appearing at least as big as our sun but so much
brighter, and that's certainly damn big, though 80,000 years is a mere
geological drop in the bucket. Since then it's been moving away at
roughly 20 miles per second, whereas today it's over 8.5 lightyears
off, and still Sirius represents the next biggest and baddest star(s)
in our sky, and since it's so bright and far away, our best
instruments can only detect the Sirius/a&b, as Sirius/c and of
whatever planets are only known to the Dogon. Go figure that one out.

Seems as though it is as likely as not that planets within the zone of
life, like Mars, Earth and Venus could have been those terraformed by
creators, thus by well intending folks that did whatever they could,
to see that their efforts were not in vain. Natural disasters and
perhaps creator mistakes (no one's perfect) may have plaid a role, but
mankind has more than influenced if not sealed the fate of Earth,
especially of lately, with our frequent energy wars and of pagan
worshipings, now we're off snipe hunting for those WMD in order to
justify our warlords taking of thousands of innocent lives. At least
the only one of us that should feel better off is the Pope, as for
what their Catholic church did to those nice Cathars was truly
despicable, as certainly representing nothing at all like what any
reasonable terraforming creators would have intended. As how freaking
sick would you have to be if you were some creator that intentionally
constructed such god offal DNA/RNA and/or manipulated your beings for
such a horrific task. So obviously, mankind is 99% responsible for our
own fate, as there's only so much that a remote world of creators can
accomplish from afar, especially from as far away as Sirius.

I know, I know, there I go again, slipping myself way off the deep end
by suggesting that I'm sufficiently right and that you're the one
that's been snookered and subsequently skewed so way off base. Well,
what can I say, short of getting myself entirely reprogrammed and
connected back into your Borg collective, so that I'll follow our
fearless WMD snipe hunting leaders off the nearest cliff, or back into
their cesspool of life, is always an option.

The fact that privet agendas and ulterior motives have been in full
swing for decades, most recently based entirely upon our dwindling
global energy reserves, our leaders having fought many wars (hot and
cold) over whom has what and of most importantly of whom gets access
to it, and/or selectively partitioning out shares of profits from the
spoils of said energy. This lethal tug-of-war is simply what's been
responsible for the most recent waves of carnage and of collateral
damage, with the undertow of powers struggling to grasp all the energy
rings and then some. Well guess what, the moon has become the next
best thing on the map, as energy wise the moon is by far offering the
biggest energy pot and simultaneous strategic starwars outpost over
the entire Earth, so much so that it'll likely supersede our need of
taking Cuba, of which we've previously tried seven times and badly
failed seven times. Although, with the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole
element reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth, hosting a few of those
100 GW 0.5 milliradian laser cannons, we could light off an individual
Cuban cigar if we wanted to.

If you think you can contribute to these issues, or to this novel of
life and consequences, I'm all ears, though I've been told that
there's not all that much between them ears because, my Borg
collective interface has been broken down for at least the past three
years and counting, though your's is probably still fully functioning
and synchronized to the collective.

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

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

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA

(Henry Spencer) writes:

Moreover, the more generous you are with mass to LEO, the easier it
becomes to design the vehicles that are going to Mars. It's very likely
that you could get substantial net savings on a modest program of Mars
expeditions by doubling the mass into LEO, despite the extra launch costs.

Ah, but surely there is this wisdom "lauching mass is expensive, so we
have to save mass at all costs" getting in the way.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
I thought this topic was about why we should NOT goto Mars?


Moon He3/3He is there for the taking, our wonderful GW Bush is super
terrific at such taking. For that alone I'll back the Moon or Bust
notions long before there'll be any sympathy for the likes of a frozen
and irradiated to death Mars.

He3 is not free power. Go do some homework.

So, depending on how generous you're being, anything from six to twelve
hundred tonnes to LEO there.

--
-Andrew Gray


Those who don't want a Mars mission the most are very generous in allocating
tonnage for the mission. When I first heard the $1 trillion figure for going to
Mars, I was wondering what George Bush was planning? Sending 100 men and women
to Mars? Apparently George Bush didn't specify a specific amount, the $1
trillion figure was put out by anti-Mars people hoping that it will generate
opposition by a more frugal public, then they marshal some scientists who want
nothing but scientific gobbledegook comming from space, they want to send out
boring probes ad infinitum until public enthusiasm wanes and they can get back
to their ground based telescopes.

Tom

On 19 Jan 2004 14:47:38 -0800, (Brad Guth) wrote:

...... don't we have enough problems right here on Earth
that we can't presently afford to fix. Seems like adding several
hundred billion into another space toilet adventure is just a wee bit
unwise, if not downright pathetically stupid ....

This was the argument used to gut NASA at the end of the 1960s: We
have problems here at home, let's solve them. We'll keep NASA around
and have the shuttle going up and down, but we have to fix our
problems here on Earth before we go father into space.

30 years later, have we fixed our social problems? HAve we eliminated
crime, poverty, homelessness, and disease? No, no, no, no, and no; in
fact we have some new problems that we haven't thought of. So the
argument aht money that would have been used for space will solve our
problems on Earth has no volaidity because it hasn't happened.

Furthermore, social programs get 34% of the Federal budget where NASA
gets 1%, down from something like 5% during Apollo; and while it is
politically correct to take money from NASA to fund social programs,
it is political suicided to move money in the opposite direction. So
social programs have a bigger peace of the pie to start with and are
plotical sacred cows, so they are hardly threatened by a Mars program.

If the backers of social programs want to show how forward thinking
and magnanimus they are, instead of zealously coveting every tax
dollar they can get and screaming like banshees at the thought of NASA
spending more than $0.00 on its whole budget, they should allow space
exploration to go ahead, to expand our knowledge of the universe and
our childrens' minds while they sweat the details.

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.

I've been thinking (all three brain cells worth) all along that, if
there ever was a viable other home-world worthy of reptilian folks
(besides Venus), that consideration might have to be 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
obviously have sufficient time to think about doing something with
respect to our very unique moon.

Unfortunately, the greater potential for Earth upon obtaining the
likes of He3 or 3He, or most certainly of anything whatsoever ET
worthy, can just as soon get much worse, with 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 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 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, 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.

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


"Dosco Jones" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
I thought this topic was about why we should NOT goto Mars?


Moon He3/3He is there for the taking, our wonderful GW Bush is super
terrific at such taking. For that alone I'll back the Moon or Bust
notions long before there'll be any sympathy for the likes of a frozen
and irradiated to death Mars.

He3 is not free power. Go do some homework.