Is this why we still do not have Selene L1

What's technically wrong with our using Selene L1?

~ BG

On Apr 19, 4:44*pm, BradGuth wrote:
Perhaps any platform of science instruments and cameras covering
multiple bandpass spectrums from IR to UV, including TRACE and OCO
instrumentation as interactively parked within Selene L1, as intended
for looking back at Earth or forbid that of our physically dark Selene/
moon, as such would only have been too gosh darn informative and
otherwise truth revealing.

“Lunar Smackdown”
*http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...Smackdown.html
*Notice how even though equal or far better resolution of the Apollo
era existed, that never once was such a spacecraft or any kind of
associated “smackdown” recorded and published for public review. *It’s
as though our 100% public funded NASA and DARPA were being stingy

“At 8:13 p.m. EST a 217-second S-IVB auxiliary propulsion system burn
aimed the S-IVB for a lunar target point so accurately that another
burn was not required. The S-IVB/IU impacted the lunar surface at 8:10
p.m. EST on April 14 at a speed of 259 meters per second. Impact was
137.1 kilometers from the Apollo 12 seismometer. The seismic signal
generated by the impact lasted 3 hours 20 minutes and was so strong
that a ground command was necessary to reduce seismometer gain and
keep the recording on the scale. The suprathermal ion detector
experiment, also deployed by the Apollo 12 crew, recorded a jump in
the number of ions from zero at the time of impact up to 2,500 shortly
thereafter and then back to a zero count. Scientists theorized that
ionization had been produced by 6,300 K to 10,300 K (6,000 degrees C
to 10,000 degrees C) temperature generated by the impact or that
particles had reached an altitude of 60 kilometers from the lunar
surface and had been ionized by sunlight.”

LCROSS (impactor 901 kg)
*http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/mission.htm
*http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/docs/LCROSS_FS082108.pdf
The Apollo era had multiple items of much greater mass impacting our
moon, many of those having impacted at full velocity of 2.5 km/s, and
yet our supposed “right stuff” never having obtained an image from
nearby orbit or even that via any terrestrial based observations that
should have been way more than sufficient, especially considering
their inert mass and impact velocity.

“Three days later the 30,700-pound (13,925 kilogram) hulk struck the
lunar surface at 5,600 miles per hour (2.5 kilometers per second) some
74 miles (119 kilometers) west-northwest of the Apollo 12 landing
site, releasing energy estimated as equivalent to the explosion of 7.7
tons (7,000 kilograms) of TNT.”

“Several spent lunar module ascent stages and Saturn V S-IVB stages
used in the Apollo missions were deliberately sent to impact the
surface in order to test the effects of these artificial "meteorite"
impacts on the seismometers. In all, four lunar modules and five
Saturn upper stages were directed to the surface.” *And yet never a
public published image of any such horrific impacts as they took
place. *How odd, that we should need to conduct such repetitive
science.

Of somewhat further noteworthy interest: *Within the limited DR of a
Nikon Coolpix 5000, darn if Mars doesn’t outshine our physically dark
as coal Selene/moon (exactly as it should).http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...on_030717.html

For some silly reason, out of all the thousands of unobstructed
orbital obtained images with nothing but the very best of film and
optics, and the same goes for all those tens of thousands of surface
EVA obtained frames by way of all sorts of nifty cameras and video,
that not once was there any hint of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury or
even the extremely vibrant Venus above their physically dark as coal
lunar surface.

Of course by now there are thousands of amateur images, though badly
impaired by way of our polluted and otherwise incoming photon deprived
due to our spectrum filtering atmosphere, that which still managed to
show us our Selene/moon along with those other items as unavoidably
getting into the same FOV(frame of view). *Go far enough south, even
down-under south of our equator and you can’t but help getting a good
side by side perspectives of our moon including Sirius in the same
FOV, and of course from orbiting or walking upon our physically dark
moon is next to impossible to so entirely exclude Sirius and
especially those pesky other planets from a few of those images, but
none the less they had managed to do just that.

Sirius A depicted as sufficiently relative to the brightness and color/
hue of other stars, along with the nearly invisible Sirius B of a
false color, although our extremely nearby Selene/moon as clearly
having to be an overexposed or that of an excess photon saturated
simulation is what forces any computer simulated or composite image of
our moon along with Sirius to look ultra white instead of being nearly
as dark as coal. *Of course our NASA has far better simulators that
would be 100% true and fully capable of giving us a complex simulated
image of our moon along with Sirius within the same FOV.

Here’s a wide field of view depicting *the Visible and X-ray images of
our moon and Sirius in the very same FOV.
*http://www.nmm.ac.uk/rog/2008/02/

Of course most any half-baked orbital simulator easily proves that
from orbiting our moon it would have been technically impossible to
entirely avoid getting Sirius and/or a few other items of planets in
the same FOV as our physically dark as coal moon. *But then I suppose
with “the right stuff” almost anything becomes possible.

*~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Mar 3, 7:51*am, BradGuth wrote:

Were there good enough reasons to sabotage OCO, and/or was Big Energy
simply capable of putting their usual voodoo hex on such a mission?

Emissions of sweet gas flares in Alberta, Canada.
Coal has certainly been much worse than any typical oil extraction
process for that of our environment and personal health, but you
wouldn’t want your family, pets or any food source within 10 downwind
miles of a typical oil extraction field or major refinery. *In some
instances 100 miles might be considered a safe distance.

“The observation that gas flaring in the Niger Delta is causing acid
rain is also backed by the U.S government's Energy Information
Administration”
*http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/coun...ase-documents/...

“The human health effects of exposure to pollutant emissions from gas
flares will be localized to the vicinity of such flares. Therefore, it
is important to estimate how much gas each flow station in the Delta
flares. Recent data show that the Kolo Creek and Obama flow stations
in Bayelsa State flare, on average, approximately 800,000 m3/day of
gas” (most of which they’d like nothing better than to simply burn off
in order to prevent catastrophic local fireballs that could otherwise
incinerate most everything in sight).

*“Hence, based on the Canadian data, an 800,000 m3/day sweet gas flare
would elevate ambient air levels of particulate matter by 21 ug/m3 at
a distance of 1,325 meters from such flare, and would elevate ambient
levels of benzene by 2.3 ug/m3.”

Some nations have enforcement of flare gas standards to go by.
*“Burning of gas in fields that produce 150,000 m3 or less per month,
or in fields with a gas-petroleum ratio of less than 20 m3/m3”

In other words, they don’t want to see more flare gas (of primarily
methane) combustion greater than 20 m3 per m3 of extracted oil. *They
even attempt to restrict this incineration gauntlet down to the dull
roar of *“60,000 m3 per month for the pilots of flares on
installations at sea”. * Most oil fields and especially offshore
directly utilize 33% of their vented methane in order to produce a
source of local energy, of which does nothing except pass-through
whatever’s helium. *Therefore, per m3 of extracted oil can contribute
its 1% of 30 m3 of associated methane as raw helium, or 0.3 m3 helium
per m3 of crude oil. *That’s 30% helium per volume of crude oil. *In
trying to remain conservative, we might suggest 20% per volume of
crude as helium.

Of course, most all of this artificially created CO2 via oil flare gas
combustion and of our coal industry ventilation of releasing gas and
toxins, including its raw methane, helium and even freed hydrogen
would not have gone unnoticed by those new and greatly improved
science instruments of our spendy and badly needed OCO mission, that
which rather conveniently failed to get deployed. *What we have got
here is a serious Big Energy butt load of damage-control motives, more
than sufficient opportunities and certainly the wherewithal means by
which to foil or eliminate any such public funded science that might
give the rest of us an honest clue as to what we’re doing to our
environment.

“The Canadian Public Health Association has noted over 250 identified
toxins.”

In addition to the mostly artificial release of helium, there’s also a
fair amount of hydrogen set free, that isn’t otherwise properly stored
or consumed, and always good old SO2, CO2 plus NOx for good measure,
and much of everything else you wouldn’t dare put into your body, plus
a few elements heavy enough (such as radon) that’ll sink to the
surface and/or combine with other perfectly acceptable elements so as
to dilute or cloak there existence (acidic rain being one of the most
common, although others such as benz[a]pyrene and dioxin are certainly
worth noting), many of which would have been OCO remote spectrometer
detected and even rather nicely quantified per better than 3 km2
resolution. *In other words, a large enough cache of Porta-Potties
might have been easily detected and their gas output quantified by
those three bore-sighted high-resolution spectrometers. *In the near
future,

...

read more »