Re: Too much crap in s.s.h

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Doug...
> writes
>In article >,
says...
>> The time between reading s.s.h grows longer for me. Each time I log
>> in the crap level rises higher and higher. Any chance of some
>> discussion about s.s.h? I'd rather not read about Rhonda's anatomy or
>> who's doing what to whom, or arses that need rimming (what ever that
>> is)
>>
>> Hey, I've got an idea. How big and or how far apart would three
>> Newtonian telescopse need to be to collectively image the Apollo
>> landing sites? The three images are computer processed to give the
>> impression that there is one huge telescope.
>>
>> Any ideas any one?
>
>It's my understanding that the new Keck observatory array may eventually
>be able to do this. It currently has two 10m mirrors 85m apart, giving
>it an angular resolution of 85m. I recall hearing that these two *may*
>be good enough to image Apollo hardware, if the adaptive optics work as
>well as they're supposed to. But I'm not sure they can get resolution
>good enough to pick out more than shadows and points of light for things
>the size of a spent descent stage.

It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work. Those stories about
resolving car headlights on the moon are just to give the scale of what
they can do on the stars.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
Jonathan Silverlight > on Sun, 20 Jul 2003
09:23:12 +0100, which said:

>It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
>don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.

Just looking at the 1/48 plastic model I have of the landing site,
you're talking about black, silver and white against gray, seen from
directly overhead. I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.


---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Jay Windley]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
|
| It _might_ work if they can get enough contrast - sunrise or
| sunset - but that will only deliver shadows, not actual equipment.

I was going to mention that but you beat me to it. We already have orbital
photos of the LM on the surface, but all you can really see is the shadow.
If the intent is to prove it's a lunar module, it will fail. The intent of
the photo was to locate a lunar module that people already believed was
there.

The bulk of the descent stage should be three meters or so wide. If you can
image in different bands and use that funky cool image processing stuff that
the astronomers know how to do, you might come up with something. But the
best bet is to find the shadow.

| However, it might be enough to shut morons like Sibrel up
| permanently.

Of course not. These conspiracy kingpins are already in way too deep.
Sibrel, I understand, is being bankrolled by wealthy conspiracy theorists.
If he backs out now, he has to go back to doing real work. Kaysing might
just fade away and quietly die; he's in his 80s now. David Percy and his
co-author Mary Bennett are relatively young, have a high profile, and are
way too commercially tied to their sales in order to back down. They'll
just come up with one of their characteristically gynmastical evasions to
deal with it.

Let's get real. These authors have already ignored, sidestepped, or
attempted to explain away a staggering amount of evidence that would
convince any reasonable historian on the planet. What's the problem
explaining away some direct observation? They'll simply say *those* photos
were doctored too. They'll say NASA paid/threatened the astronomers to
create them. As long ago as 2001 I heard conspiracy theorists saying NASA
is busy launching unmanned rockets to the moon to deploy Apollo-like debris
in order to prepare for the upcoming opportunities to directly photograph
the sites.

Sure, let's photograph the landing sites if it would serve some other
purpose. But it will definitely *not* serve the purpose of quieting the
conspiracy theorists.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jason Rhodes]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in message
u...
> "John Beaderstadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> > Jonathan Silverlight > on Sun, 20 Jul 2003
> > 09:23:12 +0100, which said:
> >
> > >It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
> > >don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.
> >
> > Just looking at the 1/48 plastic model I have of the landing site,
> > you're talking about black, silver and white against gray, seen from
> > directly overhead. I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
> > hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.
>
> It _might_ work if they can get enough contrast - sunrise or sunset - but
> that will only deliver shadows, not actual equipment. However, it might
be
> enough to shut morons like Sibrel up permanently.

How could such a highly processed yet grainy picture ever convince the
hoaxists? That is just wishful thinking. Even a great picture taken by
sending a craft to the Apollo landing sites couldn't convince them. They
can simply claim the Apollo craft were sent without humans. They believe
what they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence they are wrong.

Jason

[LooseChanj]

On or about Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:33:05 -0700, Jason Rhodes
> made the sensational claim that:
> How could such a highly processed yet grainy picture ever convince the
> hoaxists? That is just wishful thinking. Even a great picture taken by
> sending a craft to the Apollo landing sites couldn't convince them. They
> can simply claim the Apollo craft were sent without humans.

Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites they'd
claim you'd staged the scene the night before.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Rusty Barton]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:18:25 GMT, John Beaderstadt
> wrote:

>I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
>LooseChanj > on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:56:02 GMT,
>which said:
>
>>Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites they'd
>>claim you'd staged the scene the night before.
>
>Heh heh. He'd claim he was really on a soundstage in the Nevada
>desert.
>
>Hmm... Would that mean that *he* was being faked?
>
>

My attitude to the moon hoax believers is, I couldn't care less what
they believe.

When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.



--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

[Andre Lieven]

John Beaderstadt ) writes:
> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> LooseChanj > on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:56:02 GMT,
> which said:
>
>>Hell, I bet if you flew one of the hoax nuts to one of the landing sites
>>they'd claim you'd staged the scene the night before.
>
> Heh heh. He'd claim he was really on a soundstage in the Nevada
> desert.

Offer to help him open his space suit helmet....

Two problems solved at once... :-)

> Hmm... Would that mean that *he* was being faked?

Not. Going. There...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

[OM]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:35:11 -0700, Rusty Barton >
wrote:

>When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
>landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
>waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
>If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
>should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
>them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.

....And they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party
from 1919 to 1936 in Germany, too.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Rusty Barton]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:45:21 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:35:11 -0700, Rusty Barton >
>wrote:
>

>>Why should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
>>them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.
>
>...And they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party
>from 1919 to 1936 in Germany, too.
>
>

I can see it now. There is a knock on your door on Saturday morning.
You answer the door and hear this:



"Hello friend, I am with the Launch Tower Society of the Jovan
Witnesses. I would like to leave you a copy of our Launch Tower
magazine. Do you know the true Werner? Have you accepted Werner von
Braun into your heart? He died so that mankind could be free of this
world. There are those non-believers that deny the power of his work,
but his handicraft is in the heavens! You must believe to leave this
world and reap the rewards of the heavens! What do you say my friend?"



"Yea, I believe, but I'm sorting my socks right now." SLAM! ;-)





--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

[Gene DiGennaro]

Rusty Barton > wrote in message

> My attitude to the moon hoax believers is, I couldn't care less what
> they believe.
>
> When I meet someone that says, "Did you see that TV program? We never
> landed on the moon!", my response is, "Yea, whatever." Why should I
> waste my time caring or trying to convince some fool of the obvious?
> If they are stupid enough to be taken in by that crap, who cares? Why
> should I act like some kind of religious zealot and try to convert
> them? The last time I checked, it's not against the law to be a fool.


It gets me frosted everytime! People I work with know I'm a space
enthusiast. One of the young people ( 25 years old) I work with said
"Did you watch the show on the faked moon landings?...Wow since I
watched that show I'm not so sure now!" This is coming from a person
who works in an electronics lab!

Thanks to Oliver Stone and the Fox Network, too many people are
getting a warped view of history...very sad.

My co-worker also believes in all that space alien/crop circle crap
too. He is surprised that I ,as a space enthusiast, didn't buy into
it.

I work for Northrop Grumman in Baltimore. We used to be Westinghouse
Defense Electronics. Our company designed the Apollo B&W TV camera and
has a long history of space accomplishments. Yet our rank and file
remain rather liberal, anti space exploration and anti defense even
though it puts food on the table!

It's July 20th, we have grounded shuttles and a half finished space
station and no national gumption to do any better.

Gene

[Jay Windley]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
|
| Actually, the lunar surface is coal black.

Well, the appearance of the lunar surface is debatable even among those who
were there. Aged asphalt is the best earth comparison I've heard. I
wouldn't go so far as to call it coal black. Coal is pretty darn black, and
none of the samples (even the maria ones) I've seen is that dark.

| The problem is resolution rather than contrast.

Yes, I agree. To recognize Apollo hardware for what it is would take
sub-meter resolution. To achieve that from earth would be impressive.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Doug...]

In article >, says...
> In article >,
> John Beaderstadt > wrote:
> >Just looking at the 1/48 plastic model I have of the landing site,
> >you're talking about black, silver and white against gray, seen from
> >directly overhead. I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
> >hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.
>
> Actually, the lunar surface is coal black. Almost anything man-made will
> constrast well with that. The problem is resolution rather than contrast.

That's a real generalization, Henry. The maria surface is coal black,
appearing gray because of the intensity of unfiltered sunlight shining
onto it. The highlands are a marshmallowy gray, in some areas tending
toward very light gray. You can see that in the absolute albedos of the
samples returned from highland areas and mountainous areas vs. the maria
samples.

The moon is also slightly colored, with a slight tendency towards red in
most areas and a bluish cast to some of the maria. The general red
tendency is what gives it a brownish look, especially from closer in
(like from lunar orbit). It's not just a colorless very dark gray
everywhere.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> I work for Northrop Grumman in Baltimore. We used to be Westinghouse
> Defense Electronics. Our company designed the Apollo B&W TV camera and
> has a long history of space accomplishments. Yet our rank and file
> remain rather liberal, anti space exploration and anti defense even
> though it puts food on the table!

I hate to keep saying this, but being a social liberal does *not*
always equate to being anti-space-exploration, nor necessarily anti-
defense. I am a social liberal and an economic middle-of-the-roader, and
I am *strongly* pro-space and pro-defense.

If you believe in trying to keep the peace without having to make war all
the time, you believe in a strong defense (IMHO).

And if you believe in the human race, and in preserving both it *and* the
ecology *and* a future in which people can live in both comfort and
harmony with everyone and everthing else, you believe in space
exploration.

It's really a natural outgrowth. In my humble opinion.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Kevin Willoughby]

Jonathan Silverlight said:
> In message >, Doug...
> > writes
> It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
> don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.

True. It might be significantly easier to image the shadow of the LM
descent stage (especially at dawn or dusk) than the stage itself.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Kevin Willoughby]

John Beaderstadt said:
> I doubt there'd be anything to convince the
> hoaxists, and I have misgivings about effective PR.

Agreed. It would be simple enough to show that some kind of lander was
at Tranquility Base, but no current photograph will show it was manned.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Joe Durnavich]

Jay Windley writes:

>"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
>|
>| Actually, the lunar surface is coal black.
>
>Well, the appearance of the lunar surface is debatable even among those who
>were there. Aged asphalt is the best earth comparison I've heard. I
>wouldn't go so far as to call it coal black. Coal is pretty darn black, and
>none of the samples (even the maria ones) I've seen is that dark.

The Smithsonian had a small soil sample from Apollo 17 (not the orange
soil particles). I realize 17 landed in an area with a dark mantling,
but I think the sample I saw is best described as "coal black."

--
Joe Durnavich

[Kevin Willoughby]

Doug... said:
> In article >,
> says...
> > Jonathan Silverlight said:
> > > In message >, Doug...
> > > > writes
> > > It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
> > > don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.
> > True. It might be significantly easier to image the shadow of the LM
> > descent stage (especially at dawn or dusk) than the stage itself.
> There are several problems, though. A shadow wouldn't convince the moon
> hoaxers,

Agreed. Note that I said:
kcw> It would be simple enough to show that some kind of lander was
kcw> at Tranquility Base, but no current photograph will show it
kcw> was manned.

Most of hoaxers will admit that Ranger crashed into the Moon and
Surveyor landed on the Moon.


> The issue with imaging the hardware is that we really don't know the
> weathering process well enough to know whether or not the hardware is
> covered with a fine coating of dust

That's something I hadn't realized. I'm going to have to contemplate
it.

> If it is
> dust-covered, its color and albedo will tend to match the surrounding
> [t]urain and make it that much more difficult to pick out.

Even without understanding the "fine coating of dust" issue, that's why
I suggested shadows.
--
Kevin Willoughby

We'd spend the remaining time trying to fix the engine.
-- Neil Armstrong

[Hallerb]

>
>Most of hoaxers will admit that Ranger crashed into the Moon and
>Surveyor landed on the Moon.

We dont need 100% belief just flood control so the myth doesnt get any bigger.

[Jay Windley]

"Doug..." > wrote in message
|
| The issue with imaging the hardware is that we really don't know the
| weathering process well enough to know whether or not the hardware is
| covered with a fine coating of dust ...

.... as was the Surveyor when Pete and Al found it; and it didn't seem to be
all dust from the lunar module exhaust.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jay Windley]

"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
| ... but I think the sample I saw is best described as "coal black."

I might have seen the same sample. Perhaps we disagree on the blackness of
coal. :-)

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[ed kyle]

Julian Bordas > wrote in message >...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 11:20:02 GMT, John Beaderstadt
> > wrote:
>
> >I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> >Jonathan Silverlight > on Sun, 20 Jul 2003
> >09:23:12 +0100, which said:
> >
> >>It would be a great PR picture, but I'm fairly sure objects on the Moon
> >>don't have enough _contrast_ to make it work.
> >
>
> Nothing would convince the hoaxers. You could stick 'em in a space
> suit on the suyrface of the moon and they'd still claim that it was
> all in a studio in Area 51 !! :-)
>

How about pictures of LRV tracks, or, better yet, footsteps?

- Ed Kyle

[Jay Windley]

Joe, it used to be that you could get a good discussion going among the
Apollo astronauts by asking them what color the moon is. Honestly, if the
people who've been there can't agree on a concise description of the lunar
surface, then what chance have we to do it by observing a rock here and
spoonful of dust there?

Good heavens, I can't even concisely describe the color of the one moonrock
that's just down the street from my house.

"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
| Considering that the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the
| dark soil, I wasn't so sure the sample was representative of the
| typical albedo range of lunar soil.

I hestitate to describe any landing site as particularly representative. We
earthlings forget that the moon is still quite large. Setting down and
venturing four or five kilometers in sporadic directions from the landing
site isn't necessarily going to give you a cross section that correlates to
what you might see in orbital photographs.

I have a little rack of jars on a shelf at my house that represents sand
samples taken from various places in Egypt. They range from a neutral gray
to a light beige to a dark brown. I'm sure I didn't come close to capturing
the full range of available minerals, and I'm sure the Apollo samples I've
seen don't run the full gamut.

I specifically mentioned the maria samples (e.g., the basalts available for
physical fondling) because they're among the darkest of the broad based
samples. They're not black as coal. I might venture a concession that the
Apollo 17 samples are fundamentally black. But the coal I've dealt with is
pretty much the blackest mineral I've seen on any planet.

| Have you ever been to Sunset Crater in Arizona? What the Apollo 17
| soil reminded me of was the black cinders and the associated soil of
| Sunset Crater, except that the lunar soil was much finer grained.

http://www.clavius.org/envsoil.html

Well, looking at my own web site (sheepish rolling of eyes) seems to confirm
the presence of pretty black grains of regolith. I can't agree with the
blanket statement, "The moon's surface is coal-black," but then again I
can't agree with a blanket statement, "The moon's surface is [insert color
name here]."

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Joe Durnavich]

Jay Windley writes:

>"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
>| Considering that the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the
>| dark soil, I wasn't so sure the sample was representative of the
>| typical albedo range of lunar soil.
>
>I hestitate to describe any landing site as particularly representative. We
>earthlings forget that the moon is still quite large. Setting down and
>venturing four or five kilometers in sporadic directions from the landing
>site isn't necessarily going to give you a cross section that correlates to
>what you might see in orbital photographs.

And many nights there are around 19 million square kilometers of lunar
surface poised above our heads and visible to our direct inspection.
Even then, it is difficult to determine typical albedos. What might
one gather from that? That the two main colors of lunar soil are
white and dark gray?


>I specifically mentioned the maria samples (e.g., the basalts available for
>physical fondling) because they're among the darkest of the broad based
>samples. They're not black as coal. I might venture a concession that the
>Apollo 17 samples are fundamentally black. But the coal I've dealt with is
>pretty much the blackest mineral I've seen on any planet.

Coal is quite black, and if the 17 soil is even close to being that
dark, it is somewhat exotic and not typical of lunar soils. I was
primarily interested in Henry's use of the description "coal black," a
description which I have seen before, and wouldn't you know it, the
one data point I get for lunar soil appears to be coal black. (Well,
I guess there is that orange soil too.) I wondered if lunar soil
really was much darker than I expected, or if there was a bit of
"folklore" going around--perhaps based on the Smithsonian sample.


>| Have you ever been to Sunset Crater in Arizona? What the Apollo 17
>| soil reminded me of was the black cinders and the associated soil of
>| Sunset Crater, except that the lunar soil was much finer grained.
>
>http://www.clavius.org/envsoil.html
>
>Well, looking at my own web site (sheepish rolling of eyes) seems to confirm
>the presence of pretty black grains of regolith.

True, but that is a pretty small sample and there are probably a lot
of interesting colors to be found in such sample. Some of the glass
spheres in this core tube sample are said to be purple in thin
section.


>I can't agree with the
>blanket statement, "The moon's surface is coal-black," but then again I
>can't agree with a blanket statement, "The moon's surface is [insert color
>name here]."

Agreed. But, on the other hand, I suspect many people would
underestimate the darkness of much of the lunar soil (haven't some
thought it like Portland cement?) and descriptions like "black as
coal" and "like graphite" serve more as attempts to bring about an
appreciation for the darkness of the soil than to make blanket
statements about global albedo.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Joe Durnavich]

Doug... writes:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I have heard writers (but not astronauts) describe the lunar soil as
>> "coal black" and when I first saw that Apollo 17 soil sample I thought
>> they might have had that particular sample in mind. Considering that
>> the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the dark soil, I wasn't so
>> sure the sample was representative of the typical albedo range of
>> lunar soil.
>
>The Apollo 17 soils contain black vitreous glass, with approximately the
>same constituents as the local basalt. The black glass was vented from
>fire fountains, as was a fair amount of orange and yellow glass. It has
>mixed with the regolith, giving it some of the lowest albedo on the whole
>of nearside of the Moon. It truly is quite black. (And notice that the
>images of the surface at that site, under the bright, unfiltered sun,
>still make it look medium-gray. But even in the pictures and video from
>Apollo 17, the surface looks darker than on any of the other landings.)

Yes, I have had a VHS copy of the Apollo 17 EVA's and the first thing
I noticed was the hard time the video camera was having trying to
capture both the brightness of the suits and the darkness of the soil.
Film has greater latitude, so it is possible to expose such that the
soil is a medium-gray while the suits are not grossly overexposed.


>> The Apollo 11 basalt at the Cosmosphere seems to be a lighter shade of
>> gray than the 17 soil sample--something consistent with Armstrong's
>> description of the lunar soil as graphite gray. But judging albedo
>> and color was tricky. It seemed that trying to focus hard on the
>> sample and determine its "true objective" color only led to me
>> adopting the artistic reductive focus such that I was seeing the
>> brightly lit areas of the rock as "snow white" and the shadowed areas
>> as "coal black" with a range of grays elsewhere.
>
>Very true. It's also good to remember that the Apollo 17 dark soils and
>the Apollo 11 dark gray basalts are somewhat similar in composition --
>IIRC, both are the high-titanium variety of basalt that isn't really seen
>in the other basalts of the Apollo sample suite.

That's what I remember too, and getting up to check on this I see the
titanium is mostly in the dark-colored mineral ilmenite, with Apollo
17 mare soil samples containing about twice as much as the Apollo 11
samples, and both of these well above the other landing sites.


>So the rocks brought
>back from Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 have roughly similar albedos. It's the
>soils that have quite varying albedos.

Do you know how the soil at the Apollo 11 compares to the rocks in
regards to albedo? Is it roughly the same, or does being reduced to
particles significantly change the albedo?


>> Have you ever been to Sunset Crater in Arizona? What the Apollo 17
>> soil reminded me of was the black cinders and the associated soil of
>> Sunset Crater, except that the lunar soil was much finer grained.
>
>I've never been to Sunset, but I will say that it was just this darkness
>of the soil -- and the more-than-occasional dark halo craters -- present
>at the Taurus-Littrow site that made mission planners draw comparisons
>between it and Sunset Crater. There was a hope that the dark-halo
>craters were fumaroles, sources of the same type of black cinder that is
>present at Sunset. The truth was close, but not exactly that. The dark
>halo craters simply exhume more pristine layers of the black glass vented
>through the fire fountains.

I was surprised for a moment here to find that someone else drew the
comparison between Apollo 17 soil and Sunset Crater, but then I
realized many of the geologists were based out of Flagstaff.


>The sources of the fire fountains have not, so far as I know, ever been
>identified. But there is enough black glass draped over much of the
>contact between the Serenitatis basin and its fill lavas (visible even in
>medium-resolution telescopic views) that there must have been quite a few
>vents. It would be very interesting to find one of the vents and sample
>it at depth, to try and identify the volatiles that drove them.

I have wondered if geologists would like to do some deep drilling next
on the moon. During Apollo, they had to be content with finding a
crater that punched down to the layer they wanted or with some other
process that brought rocks to the surface. But with a big drilling
rig, I presume they could just drill down to the level they, say,
think a particular ejecta blanket is at.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> Do you know how the soil at the Apollo 11 compares to the rocks in
> regards to albedo? Is it roughly the same, or does being reduced to
> particles significantly change the albedo?

As I recall, the Apollo 11 rocks and soils are of a similar darkness.
The regolith in a given place has a huge number of constituents, both
local and exotic, but it's primarily made from the rocks and older soils
of the area. So, a mare soil is primarily tiny bits of mare basalt, with
ejecta from places near and far mixed in.

The eternal rain of impactors "gardens" the surface, over billions of
years grinding it into the unconsolidated soil that we see today. So,
most of the soil was derived from the same types of rocks you find on the
surface, especially on mare surfaces where the underlying unit is
somewhat homogenous.

This was one of the things that convinced Jack Schmitt, while he was on
the Moon, that the dark mantle had to have been emplaced separately. The
soil was darker than the local rocks, and the dark soil seemed to sit
both on the surface and on top of some of the rocks. As it turns out,
the soils incorporate the black glass emplaced something like three
billion years ago, and impacts that have occurred since have tossed the
soils on top of the rocks. This muddies the picture.

As for deep drilling, yeah, I'm sure the geologists would like to do some
of it. But the entire surface of the Moon is a layer of churned and
mostly crushed rock between three inches and ten miles thick (and we
think we know what's under the thinnest part of it). It would take a lot
of inference to determine what might be under a lot of it.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Jay Windley]

"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
| What might one gather from that? That the two main colors of
| lunar soil are white and dark gray?

And that would be misleading. The moon appears white to the eye at night
because it's night-time.

| I wondered if lunar soil really was much darker than I expected,
| or if there was a bit of "folklore" going around--perhaps based
| on the Smithsonian sample.

There was quite a discussion around the full-scale lunar surface diorama
prepared for our new planetarium. The backdrop is composed of a number of
Apollo 17 photographs, and the foreground was to be made of natural rock and
concrete. Keep in mind this diorama is in the same room as our moonrock, so
there was some concern over consistency. The "what color is the lunar
surface?" argument came up, of course. In the end budgetary concerns
prevailed. The rocks were simply light gray granite chunks from the
Kennecott mine tailings the smooth surface was mortar made with aggregate
from that same site, chosen to match in color and texture as closely as
possible with our actual lunar sample.

It's all moot anyway. Nobody goes up to that room. They're all down in the
IMAX theater. They'd all rather watch "The Matrix" in IMAX than see actual
pieces of another world. :-(

| haven't some thought it like Portland cement?

Yes, but I'm not sure that was for color. That was to describe its texture
and cohesive properties. Portland cement is considerably lighter than the
maria basalts.

My standard answer to the question, "What color is the moon?" is to ask the
question, "What color is Utah?"

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Joe Durnavich
> writes
>Jay Windley writes:
>
>>"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
...
>>| Considering that the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the
>>| dark soil, I wasn't so sure the sample was representative of the
>>| typical albedo range of lunar soil.
>>
>>I hestitate to describe any landing site as particularly representative. We
>>earthlings forget that the moon is still quite large. Setting down and
>>venturing four or five kilometers in sporadic directions from the landing
>>site isn't necessarily going to give you a cross section that correlates to
>>what you might see in orbital photographs.
>
>And many nights there are around 19 million square kilometers of lunar
>surface poised above our heads and visible to our direct inspection.
>Even then, it is difficult to determine typical albedos. What might
>one gather from that? That the two main colors of lunar soil are
>white and dark gray?

Jeff Medkeff has a page on the lunar albedo at
http://www.roboticobservatory.com/jeff/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm - among
other things, it seems different areas of the Moon differ in albedo by
more than a factor of three (from less than 0.1 to more than 0.3, nearly
the same as the Earth. Add the fact that the brightness varies depending
on sun elevation and direction and the nature of the surface and you
aren't going to get a simple answer.
--
"Roads in space for rockets to travel....four-dimensional roads, curving with
relativity"
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome.
Or visit Jonathan's Space Site http://www.merseia.fsnet.co.uk

[Doug...]

In article >,
says...
> In message >, Joe Durnavich
> > writes
> >Jay Windley writes:
> >
> >>"Joe Durnavich" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>| Considering that the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the
> >>| dark soil, I wasn't so sure the sample was representative of the
> >>| typical albedo range of lunar soil.
> >>
> >>I hestitate to describe any landing site as particularly representative. We
> >>earthlings forget that the moon is still quite large. Setting down and
> >>venturing four or five kilometers in sporadic directions from the landing
> >>site isn't necessarily going to give you a cross section that correlates to
> >>what you might see in orbital photographs.
> >
> >And many nights there are around 19 million square kilometers of lunar
> >surface poised above our heads and visible to our direct inspection.
> >Even then, it is difficult to determine typical albedos. What might
> >one gather from that? That the two main colors of lunar soil are
> >white and dark gray?
>
> Jeff Medkeff has a page on the lunar albedo at
> http://www.roboticobservatory.com/jeff/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm - among
> other things, it seems different areas of the Moon differ in albedo by
> more than a factor of three (from less than 0.1 to more than 0.3, nearly
> the same as the Earth. Add the fact that the brightness varies depending
> on sun elevation and direction and the nature of the surface and you
> aren't going to get a simple answer.

Yep. About the only thing that lunar reflectivity told us definitively
was that the entire surface is covered with dust. Were any of the major
surfaces bare rock, you would see significant subsolar point brightening
and limb brightening/darkening (depending on solar phase) that's just not
observed.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

[Joe Durnavich]

Jay Windley writes:

>My standard answer to the question, "What color is the moon?" is to ask the
>question, "What color is Utah?"

To develop a method to answer the latter question definitively, and in
the spirit of recent astronomical work, we can take this set of
images:

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/utah.jpg

and average each of the R, G, and B channels to derive the true "Color
of Utah":

http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/images/utahcolor.gif


--
Joe Durnavich

P.S. :-)

P.P.S. Thank God for Mathcad.

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 10:56:57 -0600, "Jay Windley"
> wrote:

> My standard answer to the question, "What color is the moon?" is to ask the
> question, "What color is Utah?"

My father was born and raised in Moab and he would have told you,
until he was at least sixteen, that Utah was red.

Be careful how you pick your sample of respondents.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot

[dave schneider]

Joe Durnavich > wrote in with...
> Doug... writes:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> I have heard writers (but not astronauts) describe the lunar soil as
> >> "coal black" and when I first saw that Apollo 17 soil sample I thought
> >> they might have had that particular sample in mind. Considering that
> >> the 17 landing sight was chosen because of the dark soil, I wasn't so
> >> sure the sample was representative of the typical albedo range of
> >> lunar soil.
> >
> >The Apollo 17 soils contain black vitreous glass, with approximately the
> >same constituents as the local basalt. The black glass was vented from
> >fire fountains, as was a fair amount of orange and yellow glass. It has
> >mixed with the regolith, giving it some of the lowest albedo on the whole
> >of nearside of the Moon. It truly is quite black. (And notice that the
> >images of the surface at that site, under the bright, unfiltered sun,
> >still make it look medium-gray. But even in the pictures and video from
> >Apollo 17, the surface looks darker than on any of the other landings.)
>
> Yes, I have had a VHS copy of the Apollo 17 EVA's and the first thing
> I noticed was the hard time the video camera was having trying to
> capture both the brightness of the suits and the darkness of the soil.
> Film has greater latitude, so it is possible to expose such that the
> soil is a medium-gray while the suits are not grossly overexposed.
>

Do we have online access to shots that have the grey scales and color
standards included? Did the VHS include any of those?

/dps

[Joe Durnavich]

dave schneider writes:

>Joe Durnavich > wrote in with...
>>
>> Yes, I have had a VHS copy of the Apollo 17 EVA's and the first thing
>> I noticed was the hard time the video camera was having trying to
>> capture both the brightness of the suits and the darkness of the soil.
>> Film has greater latitude, so it is possible to expose such that the
>> soil is a medium-gray while the suits are not grossly overexposed.
>>
>
>Do we have online access to shots that have the grey scales and color
>standards included? Did the VHS include any of those?

Interesting idea. The color standard that would be in the shots is
the gnomon. I doubt the resolution of the video is going to be high
enough to read the color chart. In the few photos I checked, the
gnomon looks overexposed or has glare on it, so I wasn't sure it
represented the soil albedo. Also, I see the description of the
gnomon color chart I have doesn't seem to match Apollo 17's gnomon, so
I am not sure which gray level is which.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Joe Durnavich]

dave schneider writes:

>Joe Durnavich > wrote in with...
>>
>> Yes, I have had a VHS copy of the Apollo 17 EVA's and the first thing
>> I noticed was the hard time the video camera was having trying to
>> capture both the brightness of the suits and the darkness of the soil.
>> Film has greater latitude, so it is possible to expose such that the
>> soil is a medium-gray while the suits are not grossly overexposed.
>>
>
>Do we have online access to shots that have the grey scales and color
>standards included? Did the VHS include any of those?

Interesting idea. The color standard that would be in the shots is
the gnomon. I doubt the resolution of the video is going to be high
enough to read the color chart. In the few photos I checked, the
gnomon looks overexposed or has glare on it, so I wasn't sure it
represented the soil albedo. Also, I see the description of the
gnomon color chart I have doesn't seem to match Apollo 17's gnomon, so
I am not sure which gray level is which.

--
Joe Durnavich

[Kent Betts]

"Joe Durnavich
> What might
> one gather from that? That the two main colors of lunar soil are
> white and dark gray?

I think the original question was whether a a telescope would be able to see a
lunar descent stage, and the general opinion is that a telescope could do that
if the mirror were about a half a mile in diameter.

[John Beaderstadt]

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Kent Betts" > on Tue, 5 Aug 2003 04:40:38 -0500,
which said:

>I think the original question was whether a a telescope would be able to see a
>lunar descent stage, and the general opinion is that a telescope could do that
>if the mirror were about a half a mile in diameter.

Image size is a function of the 'scope's focal length and the power of
the eyepiece. The mirror enters the equation because, in general,
the higher the magnification, the more light is needed; the bigger the
mirror, the more light is gathered.

---------------
Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

[Herb Schaltegger]

In article >,
John Beaderstadt > wrote:

> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
> "Kent Betts" > on Tue, 5 Aug 2003 04:40:38 -0500,
> which said:
>
> >I think the original question was whether a a telescope would be able to see
> >a
> >lunar descent stage, and the general opinion is that a telescope could do
> >that
> >if the mirror were about a half a mile in diameter.
>
> Image size is a function of the 'scope's focal length and the power of
> the eyepiece. The mirror enters the equation because, in general,
> the higher the magnification, the more light is needed; the bigger the
> mirror, the more light is gathered.
>
> ---------------
> Beady's Corollary to Occam's Razor: "The likeliest explanation of any
> phenomenon is almost always the most boring."

Of course, you also need to consider the angular resolution of the
telescope; that's where the size of the mirror or objective lens (if
it's a refractor) is critical - if your mirror or lens isn't large
enough, there's simply no way it could ever resolve something with the
small apparent size of an LM descent stage (to say nothing of issue of
contrast and so forth).

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks