Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Being Sv/rad hot is a bit different and more insurmountably lethal than
merely getting your butt physically double IR roasted. IR hot is
technically managable, even for Venus, whereas gamma Sv hot isn't
exactly a win-win situation no matters how much applied energy or
technology you toss at the problem, as there are certain limitations of
physical mass or the volums of lesser mass that can be accommodated.

Other than believable robotic obtained images of our moon from lunar
orbit, not even halfwhit EVA photographic science was supposedly
obtained by way of those Apollo missions, at least not of sufficient
geological close-ups or much less of having depicted any of those items
that had to have been at the time available above that physically dark
horizon, of which should have been unavoidably recorded by way of the
terrific DR(more than sufficient dynamic range) of that unfiltered Kodak
film (no atmospheric attenuation nor artificial bandpass or spectrum
cutoff filters applied), that plus the matter of the official reord of
their having utilized a full spectrum bandpass of a polarised optical
element that should have otherwise made that physically dark surface
apear as somewhat darker yet, of which that physically dark surface
should have been somewhat similar to 0.07 if not having represented less
of a local sunrise albedo as to easily accommodating what such an
unobstructed view of Jupiter should have easily been recorded as a small
orb but otherwise sufficiently illuminated item. That same photographic
argument especially goes so much further on behalf of a nearby and
vibrant Venus being a rather highly photographic item as of missions
A-11, A-14 and A-16, of which most any 3D solar system simulator proves
that I'm right.

It seems no matter what the LLPOF consequences, of collateral damage and
carnage of the innocent (plus these same naysay individuals having
accellerated our global warming along with their taking of
Islamic/Muslim blood for oil fiasco that so many of you folks typically
approve of), whereas being the all-knowing status quo minions that you
are, you folks must like sucking up to whatever's MI/NSA and of their
NASA's infomercial-science butt, as apparently it's what makes each of
your brown noses feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it. I suppose that
all-knowing infomercial mindset of those continually opposing the truth
would also have to include using NASA's conditional laws of physics and
of their skewed science plus evidence exclusions where needed, that
being just what your Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones) and mostly white
Jewish doctors ordered (I'm not saying that all Jews are bad folks, only
a few are such, and the others are simply not willing or otherwise
capable of policing their own kind).

How about I ask nicely, and since most folks are too dumbfounded to
answer, as then I'll try my best to answer a few of my own questions:

Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report? (I didn't think so)

Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation? (I didn't think
so)

Have any of you folks got an honestly independent and otherwise
replicated clue as to exactly how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is? (I
didn't think so)

Fortunately, Mars is not nearly as naked as our moon, but since it's
further way from being solar shielded, therefore it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather moon like gamma
horrific. Do you folks even know what gamma does whenever interacting
rather badly with all of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter
of what that Mars surface represents, not to mention your DNA trauma and
having gone clean through every scrap of your bone marrow? (I didn't
think so)

Our moon however is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's getting
rather nicely solar illuminated along with a full gauntlet of receiving
all sorts of what's nasty as raw solar plus cosmic energy influx, that
which the surface of Earth never obtains. Is there some
taboo/nondisclosure of a hocus-pocus law of physics, as per reasoning or
of skewed infomercial-science logic, by which you folks can offer as to
why our moon shouldn't be worse off than our lethal Van Allen belts? (I
didn't think so)

Would any of you folks like to review a nifty PDF file, such as I might
share and share alike on behalf of contributing a look-see at my copy of
the now officially banished Constellation-X (AKA con_x_dose1) report:
(original though another NASA intentionally broken link
http://conxproject.gsfc.nasa.gov/rad...on_x_dose1.pdf)

How about my offering that link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our
fully illuminated though physically dark moon, as for each orb being
within the same photographic frame?

Jupiter - Moon occultation (though incorrectly posted as
"moom.saturn.jpg")
Taken by Becky Coretti with Bill Williams, using a 15" Obsession and a
Tom O Compact Platform. A ToUCam was used with a TeleVue 4x Powermate.
For some reason this image file got itself improperly named as
"moon.saturn.jpg", but otherwise having been properly published as being
that of our moon and Jupiter as obtained within the same frame and
exposure.
http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/moon.saturn.jpg

In other words, if amateurs can manage to have photographed (from Earth
and thus through our polluted and spectrum filtering atmosphere none the
less) the likes of Jupiter as being of somewhat similar brightness to
the moon's albedo, then where's that supposed insurmountable problem
with that task of having obtained Venus and of a few other items
(including Sirius), especially from within that naked lunar environment
and of being optically spectrum unfiltered to boot, that is other than
having a polarised lens element which should have made the moon surface
nearly half again darker, and that polarising element impact should have
been rather especially effective within that near point-source of raw
solar illumination.

BTW; that physically dark (nearly open coal extraction pit sort of
dark) and of an extremely dusty moon surface is not actually the least
bit retroreflective as having been suggested from all the NASA/Apollo
rusemasters, because if it were as such retroreflective, local
astronomers would be going blind for having a terrestrial look-see at
the same lunar terrain, that which upon average reflects at 0.072
instead of the 0.55~0.65 as often depicted by way of those official
NASA/Apollo images that seem so guano and portland cement like, plus
exactly as though xenon lamp spectrum illuminated.

Those unfiltered Kodak moments simply do not lie, however we know for a
bloody unfortunate matter of fact after fact, that our government lies
for sport and almost continually.

Too bad we still don't have a few of those very basic interactive
science instruments as honestly reporting from that lunar deck, or even
so much as an energy efficient form of station-keeping science platform
within LL-1. I guess we'll have to wait for China to help us out, as
well as the same goes for China accomplishing Venus.

WARNING: this next part is still a bit dyslexic encrypted
Our moon is hot, Venus is not

Our moon as a viable space station or as accommodating any such science
and survival outpost as having been suggested by our trusty
http://www.ARC-space.org (Alliance to Rescue Civilization) rusemasters,
as being their NASA approved formula of providing our salvation on
behalf of that concept accommodating humanity and most other life as we
know it a viable sanctuary, unfortunately this modern version of Noah's
Arc sucks real bad.

For starters it's of a physically dark place, extremely dusty as all
get-out (to the tune of at least tens of fluffy meters deep), and it's
all remaining as rather highly electrostatic, plus getting everything in
sight double IR roasted by day and otherwise extremely sub-frozen by
night, whereas it's also a rather easily pulverised environment and
thoroughly allowing everything in sight plus of whatever's just below
that cosmic morgue of a nasty surface as getting unavoidably
secondary/recoil TBI(total body irradiated) to death, along with the
moon itself being a tad bit locally radioactive to boot. Therefore,
being deep underground might not even represent a safe bet. The moon
surface environment is also most certainly worse off for the likes of
human DNA than whatever our Van Allen badlands have to contribute. In
other words, being there in person is to die for.

PARTICLES AND FIELDS IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...i?artid=223814
"The lower limit of Van Allen belts that goes down to 200 km of
altitude" has been getting downright testy, as in representing a larger
SAA zone and lo and behold, it's only getting worse off by the year.

Effects of Device Packaging and PC Board Materials on Radiation Dose in
the Die
http://klabs.org/mapld04/abstracts/long_a.pdf
GSO / "Outside the Spacecraft 1,240,000 Krad/year" (I believe that's as
having been based upon a relatively passive/inactive solar year, whereas
a bad solar year might be ten fold wore yet).

The outer Van Allen radiation belt extends from an altitude of about
10,000 to 70,000 km (as well as solar wind distorted and via gravity
extends itself a bit more so towards our moon), having some of its
greatest radiation intensity situated between 15,000 and 25,000 km. GSO
at 36,000 km is supposedly just outside of that maximum dosage zone
(except whenever it's within a sun--Earth--moon alignment), although a
previous Raytheon/TRW Space Data Report as having nailed that GSO
environment dosage while shielded by 2 g/cm2 was still worthy of their
systems having to survive 2e3 Sv/yr, or 548 rads/day and thereby of
nearly 23 rads/hr while being physically shielded by 5/16" of 5086
aluminum, and I believe that average was based upon a somewhat typically
active solar year, which I do believe can get worse off by as much as
another 10 fold from solar spikes in lethal energy that have recently
gone well off scale, having terminated a few of those less rad-hard
satellites in the process, with most other satellites sustaining some
measurable degrade in their capability.

Gamma-Ray Moon
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton...ay_Observatory
Cruising at merely 450 km isn't by any means clear of having to look
through the worse local radiation dosage there is within each of those
Van Allen belts, as any gamma image having to incorporate whatever the
inner plus outer Van Allen belts have to offer. Therefore the EGRET
gamma-ray detector onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory(CGRO) as
having obtained it's image of our gamma moon was also having to record
that composite image as taking in that exposure while looking through
some of the worse of lethal Van Allen zones of what our magnetosphere
has to offer, whereas the moon simply records as being considerably more
gamma worthy than the surrounding space as having been given those
reddish pixels that's indicating as the much weaker dosage, that which
unavoidably involves the bulk of whatever our inner plus outer Van Allen
belts have to offer.

There's good reason for ISS keeping itself below the 400 km mark, as
well as their having to avoid the SAA at all cost, which is primarily
about their having to make do with avoiding the much less intensive
inner Van Allen belt that's not such a DNA friendly realm.
Unfortunately, that inner belt has been dropping like a rock as of the
last century, along with a reported 0.05%/yr reduction in our magnetic
flux. If I could blame that one on GW Bush you know I would, but in
this case being such an SOB of a LLPOF warlord isn't at fault, it's just
mother Earth doing her thing of aging and eventually getting us all
radiated to death because our DNA simply is not by itself evolving as
Darwin had hoped. I believe what's needed is a good dosage of applied
intelligent design that'll make our DNA sufficiently rad-hard, or else
we'll eventually need to get ourselves off this 'dooms day' rock,
especially testy if life on Earth manages to survive long enough when
our solar system is orbiting close to our extra bright and Sv-hot Sirius
star/solar system that's pulling us along.

BTW; everything orbits something, and our solar system so happens to be
orbiting the much more powerful and considerably massive Sirius
star/solar system. At least there's nothing else within our 105,000
year cycle what's worth looking at.

As with the visible spectrum of CCD obtained images, there are
hard-scientific numbers associated with each and every pixel of that
gamma image. That official gamma spectrum image which so happens to
include our physically dark moon as seen from within our protective and
thus radiation moderating/attenuating magnetosphere, as looking so alive
in gamma radiation isn't any more so a mistake than are those radar
illuminated images of Venus as having depicted what's looking so
intelligent and rational about a few rather significant features, so
it's perfectly OK if you don't believe me, as you naysaying folks can go
fish for yourself.

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...s/S025002.html
"The energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a
model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar
surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Thus, in
high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun."

Unfortunately, most of the time our sun is not all that quiet, and
sometimes it's downright nasty and at times going off the charts with
saturated lethal dosage output.

Those previous key words of "Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun" means
the surface environment of our physically dark moon is in fact capable
of being far worse off in gamma dosage than walking on our sun.
Basically, in anticathode physics upon our moon there's considerably
greater mass per cm3 or per m3 that's available to interact with, as in
more so than density of reactive mass than whatever those Van Allen
belts can possibly represent. Instead of our moon producing various
harmless secondary/recoil dosage of even the likes of soft-X-rays, as
being the case of what the relative micro density or sparsely populated
turf of what those Van Allen belts represent, whereas our moon is
instead generating gamma and then unavoidably the secondary/recoil worth
of hard-X-rays that get produced by way of the fundamental interaction
of cosmic and solar energy, as such influx unavoidably reacts with the
rather considerable and obviously naked density of that lunar surface,
that's basically a composite of sufficiently heavy elements that
represents itself as the cosmic and solar anticathode motherload of
producing such lethal radiation. At minimums, and especially by day,
we're looking at several hundred rads per hour (with unavoidable peaks
going thousands of rads per hour), that which any damn fool of human DNA
that's taking a moonsuit walk upon that nasty surface will have to deal
with such consequences, and/or soon thereafter must die rather
horrifically from the inside out.

http://www.inconstantmoon.com/lim_9908.htm
"It's cosmic radiation, which is stopped by the Earth's magnetic field,
falls directly onto the lunar surface. This causes atomic decay which
releases the gamma rays."

But then folks, if the cosmic produced gamma isn't quite bad enough, we
also have those various lethal X-rays of the raw solar illuminated moon
to deal with.
http://www.airynothing.com/high_ener...rces/moon.html
Of course the X-ray albedo of our moon is relatively ****-poor (an X-ray
albedo of perhaps not 0.01 or less than 1%), thus for actually being
there in person is simply a whole lot worse off by a good 100+ fold of
representing lethal trauma for your frail human DNA than having been
indicated by what little of such X-rays are reflected by the solar
illuminated portion of our physically dark moon, as getting raw solar
illuminated to death. Too bad we still don't have so much as a basic
science platform within that nifty LL-1 zone, that which could have been
interactively feeding us live science data from before those hocus-pocus
Apollo missions, and at not half the cost of just one such mission, thus
for roughly 5% the cost of those Apollo missions and we'd know absolute
loads of honest stuff about our moon, several astronauts would still be
alive, plus having obtained even better Earth science to boot.

Basically there's nothing all that end-user friendly about our moon,
that is unless you're a sufficiently tough rad-hard sort of robot.
Being situated at LL-1 (60,000 km away from that moon) is certainly a
whole lot better off, but as such it still isn't offering a long-term
safe enough distance unless surrounded by an artificial magnetosphere or
50t/m2 of what my tethered CM/ISS shell should represent.

The surface of Venus, especially of the nighttime season, although being
somewhat cooler and especially cooler by way of elevation, whereas that
environment should by rights remain every bit as geothermally active and
thereby sustaining that unavoidably toasty surface environment in the
none-lethal spectrum of IR, however the multiple Sv(1e2 rads) or (1e2
rems) of potentially lethal radiation dosage from whatever's cosmic and
even via solar is actually of a less dosage than it is for us on Earth,
making Venus our best and nearest rad-hard planet that so happens to
have unlimited renewable energy to burn, that will never actually so
easily burn much of anything because of the rather low amounts of free
O2. BTW; atmospheric pressure is biologically a none-issue unless
you're a certified village idiot (AKA naysayer), whereas a given change
of 4+bar/km could be humanly insurmountable without our involving some
applied intelligent design, as physiological improvements to our bodies
that would need to adjust to such changes, in that so much so that
walking to/from a second floor might not agree with many of us, though
local Venusians as having evolved and/or having intelligently adapted to
their environment, or of obviously robotics shouldn't much care.

What I'm saying all along is that Venus is merely physically IR hot
because of the rather newish planetology and unavoidable geothermal
issues, and as such that's something which is technically manageable,
even within certain biological reams, whereas being physically double-IR
roasted (solar influx plus local secondary reflected IR) plus being
seriously multi Sv-hot in gamma and hard-X-ray as being the harsh
environment of our moon is not so easily surmounted unless you're a
sufficiently rad-hard robot.

Would you folks like to see a picture of what's looking so rationally
intelligent about Venus? or would you much rather pretend that you
haven't been lied to?
-
Brad Guth


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

Oh, and by the way ...

Luna is _not_ covered by fluffy dust tens of meters deep. That was one
of the fears during the 1950's and early 1960's, but as was shown by
the first robotic probes, the surface is actually firm. We now know
that the dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid "regolith,"
easily able to support the weight of landers, rovers, and astronauts.

Nor is its surface particularly dark by daylight -- I'm not sure where
you're getting that one from. The average albedo is lower than that of
the Earth, but that's mainly because the Earth has clouds, icecaps and
oceans. In daylight, the light available to illuminate things is
_greater_ than that on the Earth, because there is no atmosphere to
absorb any of its energy.

Finally, not only are you dead wrong about the amount of hard radiation
on the surface (I suspect you're confusing "millirems" with "rads"),
but under the surface Luna is not only no more radioactive but in fact
is probably _less_ radioactive than the Earth. The Earth is denser
than Luna, and one of the common substances that makes it denser is
_uranium_, whose decay products include radon. Luna has _less_ heavy
elements (including uranium) than does the Earth.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:

The Earth is denser
than Luna, and one of the common substances that makes it denser is
_uranium_, whose decay products include radon. Luna has _less_ heavy
elements (including uranium) than does the Earth.

Non sequitur. The earth is denser than luna, and uranium is dense, but
that doesn't mean earth has more uranium. Indeed, uranium tends to be
segregated in the crust (for chemical reasons) of Earth. What the moon
lacks is a large iron core, a phase that should be depleted in uranium
with respect to chodritic averages.

Paul

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

: Luna is _not_ covered by fluffy dust tens of meters deep. That was
one
: of the fears during the 1950's and early 1960's, but as was shown by
: the first robotic probes, the surface is actually firm. We now know
: that the dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid
"regolith,"
: easily able to support the weight of landers, rovers, and astronauts.

There have been no such fly-by-rocket surface probes that didn't impact.
You're so freaking in denial, in that your denial is in denial. If our
moon isn't dusty, then it's the only one of it's kind that isn't.
Terrestrial and even certain satellite radar images of low enough
applied frequency will prove that I'm right, as well as the terminator
thermal shift proves how dusty a given moon really is: therefore, what
is it that you've got to work with that isn't taken from your
NASA/Apollo koran?

Your "dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid regolith" is
absolute infomercial-science and of your pagan NASA's conditional
physics crapolla on a stick. In other words; don't say it unless you
can prove it outside of NASA, or personally replicate it yourself.

: Nor is its surface particularly dark by daylight -- I'm not sure where
: you're getting that one from. The average albedo is lower than that
of
: the Earth, but that's mainly because the Earth has clouds, icecaps and
: oceans. In daylight, the light available to illuminate things is
: _greater_ than that on the Earth, because there is no atmosphere to
: absorb any of its energy.

MOS denial that's deeper yet in save-thy-butt denial. Many images,
including those of your NASA/Apollo obtained images of our moon and
Earth within the same frame, as robotically obtained from lunar orbit,
proves that you're dumbfounded if not also a certified liar. Since you
claim as being all-knowing and thus not having been snookered, which is
it?

: Finally, not only are you dead wrong about the amount of hard
radiation
: on the surface (I suspect you're confusing "millirems" with "rads"),
: but under the surface Luna is not only no more radioactive but in fact
: is probably _less_ radioactive than the Earth. The Earth is denser
: than Luna, and one of the common substances that makes it denser is
: _uranium_, whose decay products include radon. Luna has _less_ heavy
: elements (including uranium) than does the Earth.

No I'm not confusing "millirems" with "rads". You forget or rather
exclude all scientific evidence that rocks your mainstream status quo
boat, in that at minimum your moonsuit butt is continually surrounded by
a good 3.14e6 m2 of whatever's locally radioactive and/or of being
solar/cosmix influx reactive, and do bother as to remember, especially
if we're going by your NASA/Apollo koran, that there's next to nothing
in atmospheric density between yourself and each of those nasty m2, nor
of whatever's incoming.

You're also into having to ignore those solar and cosmic physical
deposits. Unlike yourself and most others, I tend to interpret that our
once-upon-a-time icy proto-moon is still somewhat salty and a bit older
than Earth, especially if what you say is true about the supposed lack
of local radioactive elements, which is rather odd because, I seem to
recall that your NASA having officially stipulated that our moon was
upon average moontology wise as representing itself as being at least
twice as radioactive as mother Earth (I suppose that's also because our
moon is by way of their accounting a half billion or so years less old
than Earth, but you'd think otherwise having been unavoidably deposited
with damn near everything imaginable, including a few solar/cosmic
radioactive substances).

Solar and cosmic physical stuff is not entirely passive, any more so
than our moon is a passive guano island that's somehow converting raw
solar illumination into a terrestrial like xenon lamp spectrum, while
otherwise managing to keep itself stealth from having obtained the very
same gauntlet and of whatever that wussy gravity has managed to hold
onto, as representing the very same likes of whatever micro debris our
Van Allen belts and Earth gets to deal with, except supposedly without
hardly any benefit of an oxidising element, such as o2.

"Paul Foley" wrote in message
nk.net
From Bob Park's online newsletter What's New:
Two years ago I visited Prof Van Allen in his office at the
U. Iowa. At 89 he was down to a 7-day work week. He showed
me an op-ed he was sending to the NY Times in which he described
human space flight as "obsolete"
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN04/wn072304.html
I don't believe they used it. Van Allen said using people to
explore space is "a terribly old fashioned idea."

Van Allen was very perceptive. He raised a point that virtually never
gets aired in the manned spaceflight debate, a point that cuts right to
the heart of the matter: sending people out in ships is old thinking. An
obsolete way of doing things.

That's rather odd, because without a doubt I'd have to totally agree
with Prof Van Allen, and then some. Manned expeditions are not only
extra spendy by a factor of at least tens if not actually hundreds of
fold, but otherwise extra time consuming, plus even if nothing goes
wrong remaining as damn risky DNA lethal business, and that's not to
mention whatever microbes or spores our unintentional panspermia could
infect Earth or that of the other world with whatever either is not
prepared for.
-
Brad Guth


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

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

: Luna is _not_ covered by fluffy dust tens of meters deep. That was one
: of the fears during the 1950's and early 1960's, but as was shown by
: the first robotic probes, the surface is actually firm. We now know
: that the dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid "regolith,"
: easily able to support the weight of landers, rovers, and astronauts.

There have been no such fly-by-rocket surface probes that didn't impact.

What are you talking about? There have been several soft-landing
missions to Luna, including five manned ones and a whole bunch of
robotic ones.

You're so freaking in denial, in that your denial is in denial. If our
moon isn't dusty, then it's the only one of it's kind that isn't.

I didn't say it wasn't dusty. It's very obviously dusty, as confirmed
by the Apollo missions. What I said is that only a small surface layer
of the dust is loose; the lower layers have been vacuum-bonded and
compacted to the point where they are able to bear considerable
weights. The Clarkean _A Fall of Moondust_ image of huge dust seas is
outdated, or if it exists is only the case in some parts of the planet.

Terrestrial and even certain satellite radar images of low enough
applied frequency will prove that I'm right, as well as the terminator
thermal shift proves how dusty a given moon really is: therefore, what
is it that you've got to work with that isn't taken from your
NASA/Apollo koran?

Again, I don't see why you want us to ignore the data retrieved by the
people who have actually been there. It's not all "NASA/Apollo"
either: the Russians landed robot probes there and there are several
nations currently participating in the robotic Lunar exploration that
is meant to preceed the manned return to the Moon in the 2010's.

Your "dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid regolith" is
absolute infomercial-science and of your pagan NASA's conditional
physics crapolla on a stick. In other words; don't say it unless you
can prove it outside of NASA, or personally replicate it yourself.

Brad, _this is what the astronauts found when they walked on it_.

Obviously, I can't "personally replicate" meters of dust affected by
gravity and vacuum-bonding for billions of years. No one can. But the
experiment has been done, in Nature, and the result is the Lunar
regolith.

: Nor is its surface particularly dark by daylight -- I'm not sure where
: you're getting that one from. The average albedo is lower than that of
: the Earth, but that's mainly because the Earth has clouds, icecaps and
: oceans. In daylight, the light available to illuminate things is
: _greater_ than that on the Earth, because there is no atmosphere to
: absorb any of its energy.

MOS denial that's deeper yet in save-thy-butt denial.

How is my "butt" at risk? The "butts" at risk would have been those of
the ten astronauts who actually landed and walked on the Lunar surface.

It is standard astronomy and physics that ice, clouds, and water
reflect more light ("have a higher albedo") than barren rock. This is
why Luna is, per unit of apparent size at any distance, dimmer than the
Earth. However, this does not make it dim by normal planetary
standards. The Earth has an exceptionally _high_ albedo by planetary
standards, and Luna's is rather high by the standards of airless
bodies.

And yes, more sunlight falls on the Moon's surface than on the Earth's,
because the Earth's atmosphere absorbs a lot of solar energy. The
reason the albedo is lower is because the Moon's surface reflects less
of what it absorbs. However, both as shown in photographs and in the
personal reports of the astronauts, the available light is more than
adequate to the task of landing a spacecraft, driving a rover, or
walking around. (Indeed, the Moonsuits had dazzle visors to protect
the astronauts from being momentarily blinded by an incautious direct
look at the Sun!)

Many images,
including those of your NASA/Apollo obtained images of our moon and
Earth within the same frame, as robotically obtained from lunar orbit,
proves that you're dumbfounded if not also a certified liar. Since you
claim as being all-knowing and thus not having been snookered, which is
it?

I don't even understand the logic of that criticism, since you have
failed to state just what the photos show that contradicts my fairly
standard planetological statements. I'm also not sure what being
"snookered" has to do with planetology -- it's not as if evil demons
set up false fronts blocking our view of the actual surface of other
worlds in our Solar System.

No I'm not confusing "millirems" with "rads". You forget or rather
exclude all scientific evidence that rocks your mainstream status quo
boat, in that at minimum your moonsuit butt is continually surrounded by
a good 3.14e6 m2 of whatever's locally radioactive and/or of being
solar/cosmix influx reactive, and do bother as to remember, especially
if we're going by your NASA/Apollo koran, that there's next to nothing
in atmospheric density between yourself and each of those nasty m2, nor
of whatever's incoming.

Then how do you explain the survival of the ten astronauts who actually
walked the Lunar surface? Radiation at the levels you're claiming
would have killed them within hours.

The truth is that most of the radiation hazard on the Lunar surface
comes from _direct sunlight_, not from re-radiation from the regolith.
Most of the hazardous part of the Solar spectrum is ultraviolet, which
while energetic enough to damage human skin is not energetic enough to
pierce a spacesuit or to knock loose neutrons from atomic nuclei.
You're thinking of high-frequency X-rays and gamma rays, but the Sun
does not primarily emit its energy in those parts of the spectrum.
Main sequence stars, in general, don't -- X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy
is used to locate objects _far_ more energetic than mere main sequence
stars!

You're also into having to ignore those solar and cosmic physical
deposits.

What "physical deposits" are you talking about?

Unlike yourself and most others, I tend to interpret that our
once-upon-a-time icy proto-moon is still somewhat salty and a bit older
than Earth,

What are you talking about? Luna is not composed of ice, Luna has some
ice deposits (which is not the same thing). I'm not sure what you mean
by "salty" -- why would large amounts of salt be deposited on Luna, and
how?

According to the current theory of the formation of the Moon, it was
created when a Mars-sized impactor struck the proto-Earth. Most of the
impactor remained within the Earth, but some of the impactor and a good
chunk of the Earth's crust was hurled into orbit, where it condensed
into Luna.

especially if what you say is true about the supposed lack
of local radioactive elements, which is rather odd because, I seem to
recall that your NASA having officially stipulated that our moon was
upon average moontology wise as representing itself as being at least
twice as radioactive as mother Earth

Two separate issues. Luna _on the whole_ has less heavy elements than
the Earth (the density is beyond dispute, as we know the gravitational
constant, the Moon's diameter, and its orbit and hence we know the
Moon's grams per cubic centimeter), _but_ because Luna is smaller it is
less thoroughly geologically differentiated than is the Earth. As a
result, a larger perecentage of Luna's radioactives are in her crust
than is the case for the Earth, whose gravity draws them inexorably
down into the core.

Solar and cosmic physical stuff is not entirely passive, any more so
than our moon is a passive guano island that's somehow converting raw
solar illumination into a terrestrial like xenon lamp spectrum,

I'm sorry, are you trying to argue that _moonlight_ derives from Lunar
radioactivity? You're quite wrong; it derives almost entirely from the
reflection of Solar light.

while
otherwise managing to keep itself stealth from having obtained the very
same gauntlet and of whatever that wussy gravity has managed to hold
onto, as representing the very same likes of whatever micro debris our
Van Allen belts and Earth gets to deal with, except supposedly without
hardly any benefit of an oxidising element, such as o2.

"Oxidization" has absolutely nothing to do with blocking radiation.
Our atmosphere, which is mostly composed of _nitrogen_, blocks
radiation because the gas molecules physically block the short-wave
electromagnetic energy from reaching the surface. In terms of dealing
with charged particles, it is the Earth's _magnetic field_ which helps
to block them. The reason why the hazard of direct charged-particle
radiation from the Sun is greater in space, or on the Lunar surface
(which is pretty much the same thing) is because there is no protective
magnetic field.

But this is a simple hazard to avoid -- don't go out onto the Lunar
surface naked, and build one's dwellings underground. Problem solved.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

On 14 Aug 2006 12:45:06 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Jordan"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


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

: Luna is _not_ covered by fluffy dust tens of meters deep. That was one
: of the fears during the 1950's and early 1960's, but as was shown by
: the first robotic probes, the surface is actually firm. We now know
: that the dust vacuum-bonds over time to form a mostly-solid "regolith,"
: easily able to support the weight of landers, rovers, and astronauts.

There have been no such fly-by-rocket surface probes that didn't impact.

What are you talking about?

He doesn't know what he's talking about. He's nuts. Killfile him, or
I'll have to killfile you, so I don't have to read his crazy crap.

Jordan wrote:

What are you talking about? There have been several soft-landing
missions to Luna, including five manned ones and a whole bunch of
robotic ones.

Two points, Jordan.

1. Six manned landings. Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17.

2. You are arguing with (and I choose my words carefully) a raving
lunatic.

Jim Davis

Brad Guth wrote:
Being Sv/rad hot is a bit different and more insurmountably lethal than
merely getting your butt physically double IR roasted. IR hot is
technically managable, even for Venus, whereas gamma Sv hot isn't
exactly a win-win situation no matters how much applied energy or
technology you toss at the problem, as there are certain limitations of
physical mass or the volums of lesser mass that can be accommodated.

I do not grasp where all these gamma rays are supposedly coming from,
since the Sun is not strongly radiant in that part of the spectrum.
You cannot produce any signficant amount of gamma rays by hitting atoms
with UV, because thermodynamics doesn't work that way; energy is _lost_
not _gained_ in transmission. Most of the Solar radiation is not
"hard" (penetrative) radiation, it is "soft" radiation (easily blocked
by matter).

Your argument would be correct if Luna were orbiting a large pulsar and
in the path of its beam; however, such is not the case.

Other than believable robotic obtained images of our moon from lunar
orbit, not even halfwhit EVA photographic science was supposedly
obtained by way of those Apollo missions, at least not of sufficient
geological close-ups ...

Um, Brad ... they brought back _rocks_. How's that for a "geological
close-up?"

or much less of having depicted any of those items
that had to have been at the time available above that physically dark
horizon, of which should have been unavoidably recorded by way of the
terrific DR(more than sufficient dynamic range) of that unfiltered Kodak
film (no atmospheric attenuation nor artificial bandpass or spectrum
cutoff filters applied),

Sorry, are you talking about _stars?_ Exposures taken _in daylight_
sensitive enough to image _stars_ would have failed to develop properly
because the much brighter light from the Sun (both direct and
reflected) would have utterly washed out any images.

I know that science fiction movies and pictures of the 1950's - 1960's
often showed Lunar surfaces with the Sun shining and the stars visible
in the black sky around it, but even the best digital cameras of the
present day would have trouble taking such pictures, and for sure the
analog cameras of c. 1970 couldn't have done it.

that plus the matter of the official reord of
their having utilized a full spectrum bandpass of a polarised optical
element that should have otherwise made that physically dark surface
apear as somewhat darker yet, of which that physically dark surface
should have been somewhat similar to 0.07 if not having represented less
of a local sunrise albedo as to easily accommodating what such an
unobstructed view of Jupiter should have easily been recorded as a small
orb but otherwise sufficiently illuminated item.

That's not how an "albedo" works. When we describe a planet as having
such-and-such an albedo this does not mean that _every part_ of the
surface has the same reflectivity, it means that the _numerical
average_ reflectivity of the surface is thus-and-so. This is
significant to your point because the brighter objects in view in
daylight would have utterly washed out the dimmer objects -- such as
stars -- also in view in the same photograph.

That same photographic
argument especially goes so much further on behalf of a nearby and
vibrant Venus being a rather highly photographic item as of missions
A-11, A-14 and A-16, of which most any 3D solar system simulator proves
that I'm right.

What does Venus have to do with the issue? Nobody is claiming that
Luna's albedo is as high as that of Venus, nor am I aware of any effort
during any of the Apollo missions to take photos of Venus from Luna's
surface.

Earth, however, which _also_ has a very high albedo (though less than
that of Venus) _was_ photographed from the Lunar surface, and was quite
visible and easy to image. Just as theory would have predicted.

It seems no matter what the LLPOF consequences, of collateral damage and
carnage of the innocent (plus these same naysay individuals having
accellerated our global warming along with their taking of
Islamic/Muslim blood for oil fiasco that so many of you folks typically
approve of),

What the heck does any of this have to do with Lunar landings?

whereas being the all-knowing status quo minions that you
are, you folks must like sucking up to whatever's MI/NSA and of their
NASA's infomercial-science butt, as apparently it's what makes each of
your brown noses feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it.

Actually I don't have a high opinion of NASA's policies. However, I do
pay attention to their reports of discoveries from space exploration
missions, since it's a good idea to listen to those who have actually
been there or sent probes there, as opposed to consulting the random
noises of my flatulence -- or your rantings, which amount to pretty
much the same thing, in terms of useful informational conent.

I suppose that
all-knowing infomercial mindset of those continually opposing the truth
would also have to include using NASA's conditional laws of physics

What the heck are "NASA's conditional laws of physics," and how do they
differ from the more normal and unconditional ones?

and of their skewed science plus evidence exclusions where needed, that
being just what your Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones) ...

You're blaming _a Yale fraternity_ for all this? Whatever the heck
"this" is, since you're not being very coherent about it.

and mostly white
Jewish doctors ordered (I'm not saying that all Jews are bad folks, only
a few are such, and the others are simply not willing or otherwise
capable of policing their own kind).

Huh? What do "mostly white Jewish doctors" have to do with the issue?

Ever heard of the Raytheon/TRW Space Data report? (I didn't think so)

Ever heard of anticathode secondary/recoil radiation? (I didn't think
so)

Actually, I know what you're talking about regarding "secondary
radiation" (I've never heard it described as "anticathode," unless
you're trying to refer to alpha particles), and it is a problem, but
it's a problem easily taken care of by putting habitants under a few
meters to tens of meters of regolith. And no, Solar radiation over
time does not have the power to render the Moon's surface radioactive;
it can't even make _Mercury_'s surface (which is around two-thirds of
an AU closer) radioactive.

The reason is very simple. You are confusing three kinds of
"radiation." Specifically, you are confusing _electromagnetic_
radiation (photons) and alpha radiation (protons) with _neutrons_.

While it is true that sufficiently energetic radiation (gamma rays) can
knock neutrons out of nuclei, thus turning a stable atom into a
radioactive isotope, Solar radiation (which peaks in the visible to UV
part of the spectrum) is _not sufficiently energetic_.

Now, if the Sun were spitting out vast quantities of free neutrons in
all directions, we'd have a problem. But it isn't. The reason why is
that the hydrogen-to-helium fusion reaction occurs in the Solar _core_,
and there is a lot of Sun between the core and the surface. Most free
neutrons are absorbed by other atoms long before they reach the surface
of the Sun.

By the way, if the Sun _were_ spitting out such vast quantities of free
neutrons in all directions, the Earth would be uninhabitable by our
kind of life. Earth's magnetic fields would have no effect whatsoever
on _neutrons_, which are NOT charged particles, by definition! The
atmosphere would stop _some_ of them, but the Earth's surface over time
would become rather nastily radioactive.

Have any of you folks got an honestly independent and otherwise
replicated clue as to exactly how Sv/rad-hot our naked moon is? (I
didn't think so)

I don't know what "honestly independent and otherwise replicated"
means. Neither the Apollo missions, nor any of the robot probes landed
by America or Russia, reported a lethally-radioactive Lunar surface.
It's the kind of thing you would have noticed.

My flatulence says "BRAAAP," but I'm not sure what that means
experimentally.

Fortunately, Mars is not nearly as naked as our moon, but since it's
further way from being solar shielded, therefore it's getting a bit more
than it's fair share of cosmic dosage that's also rather moon like gamma
horrific. Do you folks even know what gamma does whenever interacting
rather badly with all of that nearby and unavoidably surrounding matter
of what that Mars surface represents, not to mention your DNA trauma and
having gone clean through every scrap of your bone marrow? (I didn't
think so)

I know what gamma radiation does. And if the Sun radiated strongly in
the gamma portion of the spectrum, we'd have a problem.

The Sun doesn't.

Our moon however is considerably more naked than Mars, and it's getting
rather nicely solar illuminated along with a full gauntlet of receiving
all sorts of what's nasty as raw solar plus cosmic energy influx, that
which the surface of Earth never obtains.

_Cosmic_ radiation is capable of making radioactive isotopes, because
it's _very_ high energy electromagnetic radiation. Fortunately, in our
part of the Universe, it's also not very strong. It's the _cosmic_
radiation that designers of habs mostly worry about when they consider
the effects of long-term secondary radiation.

The solution is simple, though -- meters-thick walls, enough that the
secondary particles are also stopped.

Is there some
taboo/nondisclosure of a hocus-pocus law of physics, as per reasoning or
of skewed infomercial-science logic, by which you folks can offer as to
why our moon shouldn't be worse off than our lethal Van Allen belts? (I
didn't think so)

Um, from that sentence I don't think you even know what the Van Allen
Belts _are_. The Van Allen Belts are zones in which the charged
particles emitted by the Sun are trapped and accelerated by the Earth's
magnetic field. They have _nothing_ to do with gamma or cosmic
radiation, because photons are electrically neutral particles and go
right through as if the Earth's magnetic field was nonexistent.

"Radiation" is the general term for energy of _any form_ which
"radiates" (travels through a void). It includes many disparate types
of particles, some of which are charged and some neutral. Only charged
particles are affected by magnetic fields. This is _basic_ physics, at
the high-school level.

How about my offering that link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our
fully illuminated though physically dark moon, as for each orb being
within the same photographic frame?

What exactly is that suposed to prove?

In other words, if amateurs can manage to have photographed (from Earth
and thus through our polluted and spectrum filtering atmosphere none the
less) the likes of Jupiter as being of somewhat similar brightness to
the moon's albedo, then where's that supposed insurmountable problem
with that task of having obtained Venus and of a few other items
(including Sirius), especially from within that naked lunar environment
and of being optically spectrum unfiltered to boot, that is other than
having a polarised lens element which should have made the moon surface
nearly half again darker, and that polarising element impact should have
been rather especially effective within that near point-source of raw
solar illumination.

What does that have to do with _anything?_

BTW; that physically dark (nearly open coal extraction pit sort of
dark) ...

No. The Lunar surface is nowhere near that dark. If it were, you
wouldn't see it shining brightly by reflected light in the night sky.
In fact, the Lunar albedo is high enough that you can see the Moon _by
day_ in most phases.

and of an extremely dusty moon surface is not actually the least
bit retroreflective as having been suggested from all the NASA/Apollo
rusemasters, because if it were as such retroreflective,

What the heck does "retroreflective" mean?

local astronomers would be going blind for having a terrestrial look-see at
the same lunar terrain, that which upon average reflects at 0.072
instead of the 0.55~0.65 as often depicted by way of those official
NASA/Apollo images that seem so guano and portland cement like, plus
exactly as though xenon lamp spectrum illuminated.

Ah, I see.

You're under the delusion that the LEM's landed in _average_ Lunar
terrain.

They didn't. They landed on _flat_ terrain, which tends to have a
higher reflectivity then more jagged terrain.

Guess why they landed on flat terrain ...

some paranoia snippage

Too bad we still don't have a few of those very basic interactive
science instruments as honestly reporting from that lunar deck, or even
so much as an energy efficient form of station-keeping science platform
within LL-1. I guess we'll have to wait for China to help us out, as
well as the same goes for China accomplishing Venus.

Um, when the Chinese make Lunar landings you'll have to widen your
conspiracy.

WARNING: this next part is still a bit dyslexic encrypted

"Dyslexic encrypted?"

PARTICLES AND FIELDS IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/article...i?artid=223814
"The lower limit of Van Allen belts that goes down to 200 km of
altitude" has been getting downright testy, as in representing a larger
SAA zone and lo and behold, it's only getting worse off by the year.

What do "Van Allen belts" have to do with Luna? The Moon has almost no
magnetosphere!

some more snippage

Gamma-Ray Moon
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton...ay_Observatory
Cruising at merely 450 km isn't by any means clear of having to look
through the worse local radiation dosage there is within each of those
Van Allen belts, as any gamma image having to incorporate whatever the
inner plus outer Van Allen belts have to offer. Therefore the EGRET
gamma-ray detector onboard the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory(CGRO) as
having obtained it's image of our gamma moon was also having to record
that composite image as taking in that exposure while looking through
some of the worse of lethal Van Allen zones of what our magnetosphere
has to offer,

"Van Allen zones" have nothing to do with "gamma rays," since gamma
rays have no electrical charges.

whereas the moon simply records as being considerably more
gamma worthy than the surrounding space

Obviously, since "space" has no radiaoctive matter in it.

There's good reason for ISS keeping itself below the 400 km mark, as
well as their having to avoid the SAA at all cost, which is primarily
about their having to make do with avoiding the much less intensive
inner Van Allen belt that's not such a DNA friendly realm.

The Van Allen belts do not reach the Moon.

Unfortunately, that inner belt has been dropping like a rock as of the
last century, along with a reported 0.05%/yr reduction in our magnetic
flux. If I could blame that one on GW Bush you know I would, but in
this case being such an SOB of a LLPOF warlord isn't at fault, it's just
mother Earth doing her thing of aging and eventually getting us all
radiated to death because our DNA simply is not by itself evolving as
Darwin had hoped.

Darwin didn't hope anything about DNA, since DNA was unknown during
Darwin's lifetime. Unless you're postulating that Darwin was visited
by time travellers, that is ... ?

BTW; everything orbits something, and our solar system so happens to be
orbiting the much more powerful and considerably massive Sirius
star/solar system. At least there's nothing else within our 105,000
year cycle what's worth looking at.

What the _heck_ are you talking about? As far as I know, the only
object that the Sun is "orbiting" is the center of the Milky Way
Galaxy!

As with the visible spectrum of CCD obtained images, there are
hard-scientific numbers associated with each and every pixel of that
gamma image. That official gamma spectrum image which so happens to
include our physically dark moon as seen from within our protective and
thus radiation moderating/attenuating magnetosphere,

Again, Brad wrongly believes that magnetism affects gamma rays ...

as looking so alive
in gamma radiation isn't any more so a mistake than are those radar
illuminated images of Venus as having depicted what's looking so
intelligent and rational about a few rather significant features,

What does this statement mean? What is "looking so intelligent and
rational" about the surface of Venus in the radar spectrum?

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas...s/S025002.html
"The energy spectrum of the lunar gamma radiation are consistent with a
model of gamma ray production by cosmic ray interactions with the lunar
surface, and the flux varies as expected with the solar cycle. Thus, in
high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun."

The Sun doesn't put out a lot of gamma radiation. The thermonuclear
explosion at the core is masked by the surrounding layers.

Those previous key words of "Moon is brighter than the quiet Sun" means
the surface environment of our physically dark moon is in fact capable
of being far worse off in gamma dosage than walking on our sun.

If you were "walking on our sun," your main problem wouldn't be the
"gamma dosage," it would be being vaporized by the sheer thermal energy

Basically, in anticathode physics ...

In WHAT?

snippage of more incoherent nonsense

- Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
ups.com

I do not grasp where all these gamma rays are supposedly coming from,
since the Sun is not strongly radiant in that part of the spectrum.
You cannot produce any signficant amount of gamma rays by hitting atoms
with UV, because thermodynamics doesn't work that way; energy is _lost_
not _gained_ in transmission.
Think a little solar (although at times the solar influx dosage itself
can become humanly lethal within minutes), but otherwise it's mostly
cosmic influx that's continually arriving from all directions.

Most of the Solar radiation is not "hard" (penetrative) radiation,
it is "soft" radiation (easily blocked by matter).
I totally agree, as long as that matter isn't involving any
secondary/recoil of giving birth to hard-X-rays.

Your argument would be correct if Luna were orbiting a large pulsar and
in the path of its beam; however, such is not the case.
Obviously you've elected as to not believing in those gamma and
hard-X-ray images from NASA.

Um, Brad ... they brought back _rocks_. How's that for a "geological
close-up?"
No they didn't. Why even bother when Earth has megatonnes of moon-rock
to spare?

Sorry, are you talking about _stars?_ Exposures taken _in daylight_
sensitive enough to image _stars_ would have failed to develop properly
because the much brighter light from the Sun (both direct and
reflected) would have utterly washed out any images.
No I am not. Obviously you also can't read, much less think without
getting NASA's good house keeping stamp of approval.

Obviously you know of and/or could care entirely less about your knowing
absolutely nothing about film.

That's not how an "albedo" works. When we describe a planet as having
such-and-such an albedo this does not mean that _every part_ of the
surface has the same reflectivity, it means that the _numerical
average_ reflectivity of the surface is thus-and-so. This is
significant to your point because the brighter objects in view in
daylight would have utterly washed out the dimmer objects -- such as
stars -- also in view in the same photograph.
Yes it is how albedo works, and the proof has been more than
sufficiently right in your dumbfounded face, yet you're too snookered to
realize that you're being summarily screwed by way of those having "the
right stuff".

What does Venus have to do with the issue? Nobody is claiming that
Luna's albedo is as high as that of Venus, nor am I aware of any effort
during any of the Apollo missions to take photos of Venus from Luna's
surface.
Venus and of a few other items should have been unavoidable, so where's
Venus?

Earth, however, which _also_ has a very high albedo (though less than
that of Venus) _was_ photographed from the Lunar surface, and was quite
visible and easy to image. Just as theory would have predicted.
Double duh, as in no kidding folks. So would have Jupiter, Saturn, even
Mars and especially Venus. The Sirius star/solar system would also have
been there to behold, and I believe it also should have been unavoidably
photographed.

What the heck are "NASA's conditional laws of physics," and how do they
differ from the more normal and unconditional ones?
Whatever best floats their mainstream status quo fleet of boats, such as
their USS LOLLIPOP that's well suited for crusing throughout their own
infomercial cesspool of disinformation.

You're blaming _a Yale fraternity_ for all this?
I doing that and of those collaborating Jews of the Third Reich that
we've kept isolated and thereby protected from any hint of remorse, as
in why the hell not?

Actually, I know what you're talking about regarding "secondary
radiation" (I've never heard it described as "anticathode," unless
you're trying to refer to alpha particles), and it is a problem, but
it's a problem easily taken care of by putting habitants under a few
meters to tens of meters of regolith.
I totally agree, as in perhaps using roughly 16 meters of a composite
basalt for the outer shell of the CM/ISS makes for a shield that worthy
of 50t/m2 (five fold that of Earth's atmospheric shield).

And no, Solar radiation over time does not have the power to render
the Moon's surface radioactive; it can't even make _Mercury_'s
surface (which is around two-thirds of an AU closer) radioactive.
Never said it did, but otherwise according to the regular laws of
physics, it has most likely created a rather nifty and valuable internal
cash of He3

Of course, of physical star debris (local and cosmic) that's still
radioactive should by rights exist upon or within the surface of our
moon, as would those remainders of radioactive meteors.

The reason is very simple. You are confusing three kinds of
"radiation." Specifically, you are confusing _electromagnetic_
radiation (photons) and alpha radiation (protons) with _neutrons_.
No I'm not. Don't be silly.

While it is true that sufficiently energetic radiation (gamma rays) can
knock neutrons out of nuclei, thus turning a stable atom into a
radioactive isotope, Solar radiation (which peaks in the visible to UV
part of the spectrum) is _not sufficiently energetic_.
That's so typically mainstream status quo pathetic, that it's not worth
responding to.

By the way, if the Sun _were_ spitting out such vast quantities of free
neutrons in all directions, the Earth would be uninhabitable by our
kind of life. Earth's magnetic fields would have no effect whatsoever
on _neutrons_, which are NOT charged particles, by definition! The
atmosphere would stop _some_ of them, but the Earth's surface over time
would become rather nastily radioactive.
I agree the moon is without magnetosphere and without any significant
atmosphere, but it has enough gravity as to holding onto whatever's
solar/cosmic that comes along. Whatever those Van Allen belts contain,
our moon has all of that plus more than sufficient loads of anticathode
matter in order to make those nasty butt loads of lethal gamma and
hard-X-rays.

I don't know what "honestly independent and otherwise replicated"
means. Neither the Apollo missions, nor any of the robot probes landed
by America or Russia, reported a lethally-radioactive Lunar surface.
There's the problem, with those pesky conditional laws of physics
kicking in, and only the NASA koran available for accommodating any form
of moon related science.

I know what gamma radiation does. And if the Sun radiated strongly in
the gamma portion of the spectrum, we'd have a problem.
According to NASA, our moon is one gamma hot sucker. Once again, you
obviously can't read, or simply will not bother to read whatever rocks
your boat.

: _Cosmic_ radiation is capable of making radioactive isotopes, because
: it's _very_ high energy electromagnetic radiation. Fortunately, in
our
: part of the Universe, it's also not very strong. It's the _cosmic_
: radiation that designers of habs mostly worry about when they consider
: the effects of long-term secondary radiation.

: The solution is simple, though -- meters-thick walls, enough that the
: secondary particles are also stopped.
As I've said before that I totally agree, in that perhaps 16 meters of a
composite basalt should do the trick id situated anywhere near our
physically dark and salty moon that's also gamma and hard-X-ray hot and
DNA lethal as all get out.

I don't think you even know what the Van Allen
Belts _are_. The Van Allen Belts are zones in which the charged
particles emitted by the Sun are trapped and accelerated by the Earth's
magnetic field. They have _nothing_ to do with gamma or cosmic
radiation, because photons are electrically neutral particles and go
right through as if the Earth's magnetic field was nonexistent.
That's essentially exactly what I'd said before, that our moon is so
much worse off than anything our Van Allen belts have to offer.

How about my offering that link to few shots of Jupiter and that of our
fully illuminated though physically dark moon, as for each orb being
within the same photographic frame?
What exactly is that suposed to prove?
It more than proves that yourself and others of your kind are totally
snookered and perhaps shock and awe dumbfounded at the same time.

No. The Lunar surface is nowhere near that dark. If it were, you
wouldn't see it shining brightly by reflected light in the night sky.
In fact, the Lunar albedo is high enough that you can see the Moon _by
day_ in most phases.
The average of 0.072 albedo is much like that of an open pit coal mine.
A sunrise look-see at such a physically dark moon terrain is going to be
even darker unless your unfiltered camera is looking nearly directly at
the raw sun (would you like an image link? as you know, they supposedly
did just that). Even if that moon were less than 3.5% (carbon/soot)
reflective, at night we'd still see it perfectly fine and dandy.

What the heck does "retroreflective" mean?
Of stop signs or of being interstate freeway sign reflective. It means
being somewhat unusually if not artificially extra reflective, as need
be.

You're under the delusion that the LEM's landed in _average_ Lunar
terrain.
That's not at all true, therefore you may go straight to hell, and then
some.

Um, when the Chinese make Lunar landings you'll have to widen your
conspiracy.
What if anything do they have to hide? Did China also have a
horrifically spendy perpetrated cold-war to deal with?

What do "Van Allen belts" have to do with Luna? The Moon has almost no
magnetosphere!
I absolutely agree. But why did your obvious naysay mindset manage to
read into it otherwise?

"Van Allen zones" have nothing to do with "gamma rays," since gamma
rays have no electrical charges.
You're wagging the crap out of that dog again, arnt you.

Obviously, since "space" has no radiaoctive matter in it.
Wag thy dogs of denial to death.

The Van Allen belts do not reach the Moon.
I never said they did, although every so often there's nasty stuff from
Earth's Van Allen belts that gets summarily blown by solar winds that
more than reaches all the way and well past our moon, and then some.

Darwin didn't hope anything about DNA, since DNA was unknown during
Darwin's lifetime.
He merely used a different name for the life code of DNA. So what's the
difference?

As far as I know, the only object that the Sun is "orbiting" is
the center of the Milky Way Galaxy!
Think again. Otherwise, sorry for my rocking that mainstream status quo
boat of yours.

Again, Brad wrongly believes that magnetism affects gamma rays ...
Sorry, mass attenuates gamma, and the sheer distance itself obviously
helps. The Van Allen zone or rather great expanse of 70,000 km
represents mass. If it were representing one gram/km as per m2 = 70
kg/m2 of what should moderate on behalf of attenuating a degree of
gamma, and otherwise cutting off a greater amount of those X-rays.

What does this statement mean? What is "looking so intelligent and
rational" about the surface of Venus in the radar spectrum?
Magellan radar imaging, as having been honestly extracted from a good
composite of 36 looks/pixel, as in discovering GUTH Venus and so forth.
It means as having been made by intelligent other life, but what exactly
is it that you folks don't you want to hear about or much less see of
what's situated on Venus?

The Sun doesn't put out a lot of gamma radiation. The thermonuclear
explosion at the core is masked by the surrounding layers.
I never said our sun did all that much contribution of gamma, at least
not on a regular basis, although our NASA and many others say that it's
rather humanly lethal with what little it does contribute.

Basically, in anticathode physics ...
In WHAT?
Sorry, for my using too many of those big words for someone as
mainstream snookered and summarily status quo dumbfounded as to believe
in absolutely anything incorporated in your NASA koran. Are you
planning upon going Muslim postal any time soon?
-
Brad Guth


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

Your denial that's deep into the nearest space-toilet of denial is
noted. Lost cause to whatever the mainstream status quo of what your
NASA/Apollo Third Reich has to say.

Now, without involving your conditional laws of physics, or any of those
infomercial-science facts that can't be replicated; what is it about
your anti-Venusian bigotry that sucks and blows?
-
Brad Guth


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