Prev: best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)
Next:  Eric Gisse promotes my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ).
From: BradGuth on 18 Jan 2010 20:53
On Jan 18, 5:45 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason our spendyLROmission can't accomplish what a Earth
> bound astronomy class of color imaging can (in spite of our polluted
> atmosphere) by Filipe Alves, including picking up those secondary/
> recoil UV fluorescent colors of lunar surface minerals that by right
> from the crystal clear low orbit of 50 km should be at least ten fold
> better.
> http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm
>
> ~ BG

Those natural and otherwise secondary/recoil fluorescent colors of
that naked surface should be telling us what's even a whole lot better
inside.

Our moon(Selene) should be worth trilions per year to anyone that can
deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes as well as many outright physical threats, not to mention
what that downright nifty zero delta-V of its L1 has to offer.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
<4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: the total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

Crust average thickness = 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be heavy element saturated basalt worth as great as
3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and radium among
other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements, whereas on the
other end of the spectrum is h2o and 3He that should bring some of
that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm thinking that
lunar core is worth 4<5e21 kg and subsequently keeping itself small
and offset towards us, as well as pulling that in between filling
densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust lunar crust of mostly paramagnetic basalt
that's representing 6.25 fold greater mass than whatever the wussy
little iron core has to offer, whereas if the between filler were
given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't hardly compacted basalt,
but of something less dense or at least porous enough to allow for
such a low average density to coexist at such internal depths and
subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to offer.

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
From: BradGuth on 19 Jan 2010 01:07
Our moon(Selene) should be worth trilions per year to anyone that can
deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats, not to mention
what that downright nifty zero delta-V of its L1 has to offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission can't manage to accomplish what a Earth based
astronomy class of retail digital color imaging can (in spite of our
polluted atmosphere) by Filipe Alves, including the nice job of
picking up those UV secondary/recoil fluorescent forced colors of our
physically dark lunar surface minerals, that by rights from the LRO
crystal clear low orbit of 50 km should be at the very least ten fold
better.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent colors of
that naked surface should have been telling us as of four decades ago
as to what's even a whole lot better inside.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
<4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of robust basalt crust
might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in more than
enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness = 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be heavy element saturated basalt worth as great as
3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and radium among
other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements, whereas on the
other end of the spectrum is h2o and 3He that should bring some of
that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm thinking that
lunar core is worth 4<5e21 kg and subsequently keeping itself small
and offset towards us, as well as pulling that in between filling
densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust lunar crust of mostly paramagnetic basalt
that's representing 6.25 fold greater mass than whatever the wussy
little iron core has to offer, whereas if the between filler were
given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't hardly compacted basalt,
but of something less dense or at least porous enough to allow for
such a low average density to coexist at such internal depths and
subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to offer.

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
From: BradGuth on 19 Jan 2010 13:39
Our moon(Selene) should be worth trilions per year to anyone that can
deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats (such as easily
being nailed by a meteor that's also attracted to the gravity and
electrostatic charge of Selene), not to mention what that downright
nifty zero delta-V of its L1 has to offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission still can't manage to accomplish what an Earth
based astronomy class of retail digital color imaging can (in spite of
being on average 385,350 km further away and having our polluted
atmosphere in the way) by Filipe Alves, including the nice job of
picking up those UV secondary/recoil fluorescent forced colors of our
physically dark lunar surface minerals, that by rights from the LRO
crystal clear and low orbit of 50 km should have been at the very
least ten fold better at such color saturations.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent colors of
that naked surface should have been telling us, as of four decades ago
as to what's even a whole lot better inside. Imagine what a properly
configured 10 meter KECK could have managed, and especially while
masked down to the smaller pinhole aperture for greatly increased
resolution from its 395 meter focal length.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
<4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

However, I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of fused
basalt crust might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in
more than enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness = 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be heavy element saturated basalts worth as great as
3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and radium among
other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements, whereas on the
other end of this spectrum is h2o and 3He that should bring some of
that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm thinking that
lunar core is worth 4<5e21 kg and subsequently keeping itself small
and significantly offset towards us in order to compensate for the
much thicker farside crust, as well as pulling that in-between filling
densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3 and/or leaving voids as somewhat geode
pockets.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust lunar crust of mostly paramagnetic basalt
that's representing <6.25 fold greater mass than whatever the wussy
little iron core has to offer, whereas if the between filler were
given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't hardly limited as to
compacted basalt, but of something less dense or at least porous
enough to allow for such a low average density to coexist at such
internal depths and subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to
offer.


On Jan 4, 10:50 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6 2009, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least
> > bit hollow?
>
> > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1
> > (Selene L1) environment?
>
> > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained
> > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible,
> > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> What’s not holding up that robust lunar crust?
>
> Moon interior open space as geode like hollows/voids w/air at 14.7
> psi:
> 14.7 psi = 10.335e3 kgf/m2 (x 6 becomes a force worth holding up 62 t/
> m2)
>
> Exterior Vacuum at 3e-15 bar = 1.2e-12 inch h2o = 3.06e-15 kgf/cm2
> Otherwise a negative pull or suction of 14.7 psi (10.335e3 kgf/m2) =
> 62 t/m2
>
> Assuming this mineral saturated lunar basalt is that of a sufficiently
> fused molecular kind of solid that’s only leaking sodium, whereas
> 1/6th gravity should become worth 124 tonnes/m2 of holding that lunar
> basalt shell up/away from the porous or semi-hollow mantel and its
> tidal offset core, as such is going to lift or hold up a serious
> amount of that basalt crust per km2 (124e6 tonnes/km2), not to mention
> whatever interior pressure below that thick and heavy crust should by
> rights be something considerably greater than 14.7 psi.
>
> Due to the crust porosity and various mineral leakage as having
> allowed some degree of subsequent pressure/vacuum equalization,
> whereas even I might doubt that we’d get anywhere near that kind of
> result, but it’s certainly fun to ponder.
>
> Seems it’s going to be a little tough for our moon(Selene) not to have
> those cavernous hollows/voids of some kind, at least a few solidified
> geode like pockets, porous layers or accessible vugs within and under
> that extremely thick and robust basalt crust, especially where that
> supposedly iron core has shifted at least several percent (<25%)
> towards Earth in order to help offset that much thicker and mascon
> saturated farside crust.
>
> The farside mass offset of this unusually heavy mineral saturated
> basalt crust is worth <4e21 kg, and the maximum <450 km radii of the
> metallic core is supposedly worth 4<5e21 kg (more than likely it’s
> only worth <4e21 kg). Therefore this dense metallic core of supposed
> iron needs to be considerably offset towards Earth, so that the
> greater proportion of lunar mass is always facing Earth.
>
> Not that any thick and mineral saturated form of fused basalt crust is
> ever going to easily collapse under it's own mass, especially not at
> 1/6th gravity (even less gravity below that crust), and of course
> better yet if the average interior atmosphere of whatever pockets or
> voids of gasses were <100 bar (1470 psi) shouldn’t be unexpected.
>
> Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

From: BradGuth on 19 Jan 2010 13:41
On Jan 2, 3:18 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
>
> I can remain silent no longer. Here with the above quoted evidence I
> would like to register a formal complaint with Usenet Control about
> the entity that calles itself 'Brad Guth'. The complaint is as
> follows: Brad Guth, or whatever it is, is a poor example of space
> activism and degrades the greater enterprise with its format. It
> should therefore be held to shut up until it can present its
> propaganda in a civilized and reasonable way.
>
> Robert Collins

Our moon(Selene) should be worth trilions per year to anyone that can
deal with its harsh naked environment of thermal and radiation
extremes, as well as many outright physical threats (such as easily
being nailed by a meteor that's also attracted to the gravity and
electrostatic charge of Selene), not to mention what that downright
nifty zero delta-V of its L1 has to offer.

For some reason(s) that our NASA nor Seans can explain, it seems that
our spendy LRO mission still can't manage to accomplish what an Earth
based astronomy class of retail digital color imaging can (in spite of
being on average 385,350 km further away and having our polluted
atmosphere in the way) by Filipe Alves, including the nice job of
picking up those UV secondary/recoil fluorescent forced colors of our
physically dark lunar surface minerals, that by rights from the LRO
crystal clear and low orbit of 50 km should have been at the very
least ten fold better at such color saturations.

Canon 300D and a 10" Newtonian (real mineral colors)
http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

Those natural and otherwise UV secondary/recoil fluorescent colors of
that naked surface should have been telling us, as of four decades ago
as to what's even a whole lot better inside. Imagine what a properly
configured 10 meter KECK could have managed, and especially while
masked down to the smaller pinhole aperture for greatly increased
resolution from its 395 meter focal length.

moon surface area = 3.796e13 m2(excluding terrain features)
<4e13 m2 including all terrain slopes and features
Surface vacuum lift = 6.25e4 kg/m2

noteworthy: Total suction/lift (zero psi inside): 4e13 * 6.25e4 =
-2.5e18 kg

However, I wonder how much interior pressure 78 km worth of fused
basalt crust might help create. (seems like it could be lots, as in
more than enough to inflate our moon)

Crust average thickness = 78 km
Crust volume = 2.83e18 m3
lunar paramagnetic (heavy mineral saturated) basalt at 3.3e3 kg/m3
lunar crust mass at 3.3e3 kg/m3 * 2.83e18 = 9.34e21 kg

There should also be heavy element saturated basalts worth as great as
3.75 g/cm3, especially if containing thorium, uranium and radium among
other dense and otherwise extremely valuable elements, whereas on the
other end of this spectrum is h2o and 3He that should bring some of
that basalt density down below 3 g/cm3. Personally, I'm thinking that
lunar core is worth 4<5e21 kg and subsequently keeping itself small
and significantly offset towards us in order to compensate for the
much thicker farside crust, as well as pulling that in-between filling
densitty down below 3e3 kg/m3 and/or leaving voids as somewhat geode
pockets.

The moon supposedly has a relatively small iron core of roughly 1.5e21
kg, in which case that doesn't leave all that much volumetric density
between its core and that robust crust which represents roughly 12.7%
of the lunar mass.

Lunar core mass = 1.5e21 kg
volume between core and crust = 1.95e19 m3 * 3.2e3 = 6.24e22 kg

Whatever's below that robust lunar crust of mostly paramagnetic basalt
that's representing <6.25 fold greater mass than whatever the wussy
little iron core has to offer, whereas if the between filler were
given an average density of 3.2e3 kg/m3 isn't hardly limited as to
compacted basalt, but of something less dense or at least porous
enough to allow for such a low average density to coexist at such
internal depths and subsequent pressures of whatever 78+ km has to
offer.

BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
From: Robert Collins on 18 Jan 2010 15:15
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 04:11:06PM -0800, BradGuth wrote:
> On Jan 16, 12:40 pm, Robert Collins <s...(a)dcdaea.coms> wrote:
> > As promised, I have informed Usenet Control of your transgression and
> > expect their response at any moment.
> >
> > Robert Collins
>
> Wow! nice blocks of well crafted word salad, that unfortunately has
> nothing whatsoever to do with our semi-hollow or porous moon(Selene).
> However, for fun I'll eventually read through parts of it so as to
> insure that you get full credit.

Do not compound your crime with yet more baseless accusations. Usenet
Control will examine the record or relevant posts very carefully, in
particular, messages after the fact are sometimes the most revealing.

> At least my honest speculations are those based upon interpreting the
> best available science, plus as always sticking within those pesky
> regular laws of physics.
>
> I sure hope that "Usenet Control" has nothing better to do, than to
> follow up your request to terminate anyone having any deductive
> formulated mindset, such as mine.

Well, no. Usenet Control would if necessary contact the Galactic Patrol
if they thought there was a serious issue of that sort. I hope you
aren't thinking of messing with the Galactic Patrol; they have no
sense of humor.

> In the mean time, perhaps you can tell us why that unusual moon isn't
> the least bit hollow or otherwise sufficiently porous within or under
> that thick crust.
>
> Otherwise, I'd like us to collaborate as to exactly what that 7.35e22
> kg captured asteroid/moon(Selene) has to offer, including it's L1
> usage that Clarke, Boeing and a few others thought was extremely
> nifty, as did I for accommodating my LSE-CM/ISS.

A Collaborator collaborator? But anyways, as I said I was not really
interested in the moon.

> Venus is another issue that's hardly insurmountable, at least by most
> any 5th grader or older person that isn't brainwashed to whatever
> status quo standards that you seem to approve of.
>
> Do you have a better plan of action (besides extensive use of blinders
> and ear plugs) that we should follow?

Ear plugs?




Robert Collins

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages** Re: (use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old; Atom Totality theory (use in 4th)
Next:  Eric Gisse promotes my web·site ( www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM ).