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 31 Jan 2010 13:21
Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
to offer. Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
under that thick basalt lithosphere.

As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
exist). Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.

Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html

Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg

Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_full.jpg

Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
dark moon is unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
intrinsic fluorescence).

Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
of 900,000 km.
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
http://uvminerals.org/gallery

Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
color blind.
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse

As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
of sulfur emissions, plus various natural and artificial ventings of
raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
biodiversity or cooling us off. Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
wind). In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
could ever hope to achieve.

The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
humans to deal with.

Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?

How to capture a moon:
Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
everyone. (have yourself a ball)

Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as
well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.

Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
environment.

Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example of how a
capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
and velocity are just right.

http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
Launch angle: -128
Launch force: 6.15

Launch angle: -129
Launch force: 6.0

Launch angle: -56.94
Launch force: 7.4

Launch angle: -66.666
Launch force: 9.69

As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
Limit to consider:
“In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”

“The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
densities:”
Earth 18,470 km
Jupiter 175,000
Saturn 147,000
Uranus 62,000

Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.35e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
energy is extracted from the encounter. Of course this tremendous
encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
at roughly where our arctic basin exist.

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


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 1 Feb 2010 09:38
On Jan 31, 10:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
> minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
> from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
> to offer.  Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
> technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
> under that thick basalt lithosphere.
>
> As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
> of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
> humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
> at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
> easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
> such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
> well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
> compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
> that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
> crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
> exist).  Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
> should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
> could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.
>
> Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
> natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
> recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
>  http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
>  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
>
> Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
> same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
> nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
> fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
> get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
>  http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
>  http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
>
> Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
> NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
>  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_fu....
>
> Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
> dark moon is unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
> off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
> intrinsic fluorescence).
>
> Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
> camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
> try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
> UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
> atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
> of 900,000 km.
>  http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
>  http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
>  http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
>  http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
>  http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
>  http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
>  http://uvminerals.org/gallery
>
> Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
> color blind.
>  http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
>  http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
>
> As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
> of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
> plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
> possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
> worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
> natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
> of sulfur emissions,  plus various natural and artificial ventings of
> raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
> biodiversity or cooling us off.  Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
> are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
> always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
> loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
> contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
> wind).  In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
> a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
> could ever hope to achieve.
>
> The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
> natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
> elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
> readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
> with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
> biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
> humans to deal with.
>
> Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
> dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
> with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?
>
> How to capture a moon:
> Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
> everyone. (have yourself a ball)
>
> Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as
> well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
> of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
> within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
> of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.
>
> Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
> planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
> small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
> representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
> environment.
>
> Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
> much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
> we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
> and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
> shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
> the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
> simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example of how a
> capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
> and velocity are just right.
>
>  http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
>  Launch angle: -128
>  Launch force:  6.15
>
>  Launch angle: -129
>  Launch force:   6.0
>
>  Launch angle:  -56.94
>  Launch force:  7.4
>
>  Launch angle: -66.666
>  Launch force:   9.69
>
> As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
> encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
> those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
> issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
> Limit to consider:
>  “In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
> held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
> be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
> of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
> tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”
>
> “The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
> densities:”
>  Earth  18,470 km
>  Jupiter 175,000
>  Saturn 147,000
>  Uranus 62,000
>
> Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
> that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
> perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.35e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
> pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
> and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
> energy is extracted from the encounter.  Of course this tremendous
> encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
> terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
> teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
> fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
> remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
> shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
> at roughly where our arctic basin exist.
>
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Our moon(Selene) is not a solid rock or voidless compression of
minerals, and it's not nearly as inert and monochrome light gray (~67%
albedo) as so often suggested and recorded as unfiltered on Kodak
film.

~ BG
From: BradGuth on 1 Feb 2010 17:51
Our moon(Selene) is not a solid rock, nor is it a voidless composite
of only slight gravity compression, and it's most certainly not nearly
as inert and monochrome light gray (~67% albedo as so often suggested
and officially recorded as unfiltered on Kodak film), makes some of us
wonder which unusually off-white moon our Apollo right stuff landed
upon, where even the basalt bedrock was every bit as monochrome light
gray as a certain guano island had to offer, that was an extremely
private/secluded island nation of mostly guano that needed a free
ticket to becoming a UN member in good standing.

~ BG


On Jan 31, 10:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
> minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
> from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
> to offer.  Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
> technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
> under that thick basalt lithosphere.
>
> As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
> of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
> humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
> at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
> easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
> such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
> well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
> compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
> that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
> crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
> exist).  Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
> should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
> could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.
>
> Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
> natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
> recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
>  http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
>  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
>
> Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
> same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
> nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
> fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
> get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
>  http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
>  http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
>
> Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
> NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
>  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_fu....
>
> Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
> dark moon is unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
> off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
> intrinsic fluorescence).
>
> Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
> camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
> try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
> UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
> atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
> of 900,000 km.
>  http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
>  http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
>  http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
>  http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
>  http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
>  http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
>  http://uvminerals.org/gallery
>
> Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
> color blind.
>  http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
>  http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
>
> As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
> of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
> plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
> possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
> worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
> natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
> of sulfur emissions,  plus various natural and artificial ventings of
> raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
> biodiversity or cooling us off.  Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
> are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
> always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
> loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
> contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
> wind).  In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
> a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
> could ever hope to achieve.
>
> The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
> natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
> elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
> readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
> with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
> biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
> humans to deal with.
>
> Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
> dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
> with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?
>
> How to capture a moon:
> Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
> everyone. (have yourself a ball)
>
> Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as
> well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
> of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
> within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
> of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.
>
> Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
> planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
> small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
> representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
> environment.
>
> Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
> much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
> we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
> and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
> shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
> the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
> simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example of how a
> capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
> and velocity are just right.
>
>  http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
>  Launch angle: -128
>  Launch force:  6.15
>
>  Launch angle: -129
>  Launch force:   6.0
>
>  Launch angle:  -56.94
>  Launch force:  7.4
>
>  Launch angle: -66.666
>  Launch force:   9.69
>
> As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
> encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
> those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
> issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
> Limit to consider:
>  “In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
> held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
> be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
> of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
> tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”
>
> “The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
> densities:”
>  Earth  18,470 km
>  Jupiter 175,000
>  Saturn 147,000
>  Uranus 62,000
>
> Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
> that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
> perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.35e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
> pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
> and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
> energy is extracted from the encounter.  Of course this tremendous
> encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
> terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
> teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
> fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
> remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
> shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
> at roughly where our arctic basin exist.
>
>  Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
>
> 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”

Our 0.1<1% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad
Guth
From: Brad Guth on 17 Feb 2010 12:33
Our moon(Selene) is simply not a solid rock or voidless compression of
inert minerals, and it's certainly not nearly as inert and monochrome
ligh-gray (~67% albedo) as so often suggested and having been recorded
as unfiltered on Kodak film that was somehow immune to thermal and
radiation extremes.

On Jan 31, 10:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
> minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
> from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
> to offer.  Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
> technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
> under that thick basalt lithosphere.
>
> As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
> of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
> humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
> at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
> easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
> such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
> well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
> compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
> that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
> crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
> exist).  Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
> should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
> could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.
>
> Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
> natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
> recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
>  http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
>  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
>
> Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
> same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
> nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
> fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
> get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
>  http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
>  http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
>
> Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
> NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
>  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_fu....
>
> Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
> darkmoonis unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
> off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
> intrinsic fluorescence).
>
> Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
> camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
> try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
> UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
> atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
> of 900,000 km.
>  http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
>  http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
>  http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
>  http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
>  http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
>  http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
>  http://uvminerals.org/gallery
>
> Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
> color blind.
>  http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
>  http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
>
> As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
> of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
> plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
> possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
> worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
> natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
> of sulfur emissions,  plus various natural and artificial ventings of
> raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
> biodiversity or cooling us off.  Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
> are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
> always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
> loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
> contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
> wind).  In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
> a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
> could ever hope to achieve.
>
> The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
> natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
> elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
> readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
> with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
> biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
> humans to deal with.
>
> Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
> dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
> with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?
>
> How to capture a moon:
> Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
> everyone. (have yourself a ball)
>
> Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had thatmoon), as
> well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
> of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
> within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
> of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.
>
> Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
> planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
> small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
> representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
> environment.
>
> Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
> much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
> we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
> and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
> shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
> the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
> simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example of how a
> capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
> and velocity are just right.
>
>  http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
>  Launch angle: -128
>  Launch force:  6.15
>
>  Launch angle: -129
>  Launch force:   6.0
>
>  Launch angle:  -56.94
>  Launch force:  7.4
>
>  Launch angle: -66.666
>  Launch force:   9.69
>
> As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
> encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
> those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
> issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
> Limit to consider:
>  “In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
> held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
> be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
> of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
> tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”
>
> “The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
> densities:”
>  Earth  18,470 km
>  Jupiter 175,000
>  Saturn 147,000
>  Uranus 62,000
>
> Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
> that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
> perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.5e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
> pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
> and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
> energy is extracted from the encounter.  Of course this tremendous
> encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
> terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
> teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
> fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
> remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
> shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
> at roughly where our arctic basin exist.
>
>  BradGuth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “GuthUsenet”
From: Brad Guth on 19 Feb 2010 09:36
Our moon(Selene) is simply not a solid fused kind of rock or voidless
compression of inert terrestrial minerals, and it's certainly not
nearly as inert and monochrome light-gray (~67% albedo) as so often
suggested and having been recorded as unfiltered on Kodak film that
was somehow immune to thermal and radiation extremes.

On Jan 31, 10:21 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Might as well shade Earth a little with our moon, and otherwise
> minimize our seismic trauma as well as directly benefit and profit
> from whatever that physically dark and mineral saturated surface has
> to offer.  Off-world habitat wise, it just a matter of applied
> technology in order to take full advantage of whatever’s within or
> under that thick basalt lithosphere.
>
> As long as we can’t afford to establish those Mars habitats (outside
> of mostly robotics) because 99% of everything needed for sustaining us
> humans has to come from Earth to begin with, therefore why not utilize
> at least the relatively failsafe interior of our moon(Selene) that’s
> easy to get technology and ourselves to/from, that otherwise offers
> such an abundance of nifty and valuable cache of surface elements, as
> well as likely accessible voids and/or low density (only slightly
> compacted) material inside of its tough lithosphere, including brines
> that should have been trapped within/under that robust fused basalt
> crust (no good reason to perceive that hollow geode pockets don’t
> exist).  Otherwise, besides all those valuable minerals and 3He, we
> should ponder as to how much of our moon(Selene) offers carbonado, or
> could be easily utilized for the bulk manufacturing of carbonado.
>
> Would you like to see those surface exposed minerals, as merely
> natural hue saturation enhanced in living color? (isn’t UV secondary/
> recoil fluorescence unavoidably nifty)
>  http://www.coronaborealis.org/images/full_moon_color.html
>  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/archive/2008/10/12/moon-in-full-color.html
>
> Here’s a somewhat less-saturated color/hue version (lots more of the
> same posted on the internet), and as anyone can plainly see there’s
> nothing false colored about it, because those surface minerals are in
> fact the only photon source of each and every color pixel that’ll only
> get more intense and/or darker the closer that camera gets.
>  http://web.telia.com/~u18524382/moon_color.jpg
>  http://deepskycolors.com/pics/astro/2008/10/10-12-2008_MoonColor.jpg
>
> Many color images of our moon(Selene) exist (including those from our
> NASA), depicting its physically dark and complex mineralogy.
>  http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/175836main_image_feature_819_ys_fu....
>
> Apparently our NASA still doesn’t know that our naked and physically
> dark moon is unavoidably saturated in solar UV that subsequently gives
> off its wealth of secondary/recoil mineral colors (it’s called
> intrinsic fluorescence).
>
> Mineral colors (long-wave/short-wave UV), as perceived by what the
> camera and human eye detects as secondary/recoil photons, and please
> try to understand that our naked moon receives a great deal of solar
> UV that’s only slightly filtered by the surrounding sodium laced
> atmosphere that reaches out 9r and otherwise offers a comet like tail
> of 900,000 km.
>  http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artnov06macro/rm-macro.html
>  http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~hamblen/uvminerals/show/
>  http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/minerals/fluores.html
>  http://www.uraniumminerals.com/Notes/Fluor.htm
>  http://www.minerant.org/gallery1.html
>  http://wordcraft.net/fluorescent1.html
>  http://uvminerals.org/gallery
>
> Apparently our spendy LRO mission is still astrogeology/mineralogy
> color blind.
>  http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/
>  http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc_browse
>
> As long as we hold onto our moon(Selene) with its average 2e20 N worth
> of tidal binding force (each and every second by second = 2e20 Joules)
> plus its reflected and secondary IR of <1230 w/m2, we simply can't
> possibly have another ice age, not to mention those added TeraWatts
> worth of our mostly sooty energy plus artificially vaporized and
> natural water cycles made acidic by our CO2, NOx and of course loads
> of sulfur emissions,  plus various natural and artificial ventings of
> raw/toxic methane contributions that are not exactly helping our
> biodiversity or cooling us off.  Thanks mostly to the solar wind, we
> are also losing our precious radioactive decay element of helium plus
> always hydrogen by 100<1000 tonnes/sec (w/o solar wind that global
> loss might average >10 tonnes/sec, and without artificial
> contributions it might even conceivably drop >1 t/sec at minimal solar
> wind).  In other words, we seem to be making this global warming trend
> a whole lot worse and way more community toxic than mother nature
> could ever hope to achieve.
>
> The good news, is that essentially we’ll run ourselves out of many
> natural reservoirs and those buried kinds of raw and often toxic
> elements, so that whatever biodiversity remains can eventually
> readjust to the raped, plundered and pillaged reality of getting on
> with the more natural trends of global geodynamics and its diminished
> biodiversity of traumatized evolution, that’ll have considerably fewer
> humans to deal with.
>
> Other than all that, plus a measured factor of our artificial global
> dimming that absorbs more solar energy, what could possibly go wrong
> with the good life w/o glacial slow-ice on our planet Eden/Earth?
>
> How to capture a moon:
> Here’s a simplistic simulator package that has a little something for
> everyone. (have yourself a ball)
>
> Obviously aerodynamic drag (much greater before we had that moon), as
> well as lacking important factors of the lithobraking, loss/transfer
> of its icy mass and other tidal forces of the sun are not involved
> within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
> of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished.
>
> Think of our moon(Selene) as a spent icy comet or an icy rogue
> planetoid, whereas 6.5e21 < 1e22 kg of ice from Selene is not any
> small volume to pick from, even if only 10% of it stuck with us is
> representing a substantial addition of water to our terrestrial
> environment.
>
> Important factors of aerodynamic drag(aerobraking) should have been
> much greater and further reaching before we had that moon, as well as
> we’re lacking a few other important considerations of those primary
> and secondary lithobraking impact(s), encounter induced trajectory
> shift, loss/transfer of icy mass and those other pesky tidal forces of
> the sun and possibly Venus are not involved within this basic
> simulation, but none the less it’s still a good enough example of how a
> capture might actually be easily accomplished when the approach angle
> and velocity are just right.
>
>  http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
>  Launch angle: -128
>  Launch force:  6.15
>
>  Launch angle: -129
>  Launch force:   6.0
>
>  Launch angle:  -56.94
>  Launch force:  7.4
>
>  Launch angle: -66.666
>  Launch force:   9.69
>
> As you any most any dysfunctional 5th grader can see, a number of
> encounter angles and velocity options seem to apply, whereas besides
> those exclusions of complex lithobraking and aerobraking encounter
> issues plus ice evaporation via solar energy, there’s also the Roche
> Limit to consider:
>  “In 1848, Astronomer Edouard Roche noted that, if a satellite was
> held together mainly by its own gravitational attraction, there would
> be a minimum distance from the primary inside which the tidal forces
> of the primary would exceed the satellite’s binding forces and would
> tear it apart [Hoskin, 1996].”
>
> “The Roche Limit for two bodies is approximated by a function of their
> densities:”
>  Earth  18,470 km
>  Jupiter 175,000
>  Saturn 147,000
>  Uranus 62,000
>
> Each near miss that's within this Roche Limit and of course by way of
> that initial lithobraking process of capturing an icy Selene of
> perhaps 8e22 kg(<8.5e22 kg), would most likely have fractured and
> pulled large portions of that thick ice away from its basalt surface,
> and thereby making its capture process easier as its mass and thereby
> energy is extracted from the encounter.  Of course this tremendous
> encounter and subsequent capture would have unavoidably caused
> terrestrial seismic and tidal havoc as well as having transferred
> teratonnes of that ice to Earth, and perhaps otherwise that fully
> fused and thick basalt lithosphere of Selene should have extensively
> remained in tact, morphing perhaps only into offering the relatively
> shallow south polar crater that resulted from encountering Eden/Earth
> at roughly where our arctic basin exist.

The ongoing lack and/or obfuscation of lunar science is another
indication of how little our own government really cares. If we cut
off their funding, then perhaps we too could care less.

 Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
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 ).