Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs

From: bz (bz+sp_at_ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:15:00 +0000 (UTC)

"Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1111428311.337233.208630
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> It seems that all that's being suggested about our lunar surface neatly
> fits into the classical yet entirely conditional laws of physics, all
> the way from Kodak film that's not only thermally and hard-X-ray
> insensitive but entirely insensitive as to recording the unfiltered
> near-UV and UV/a energy that's a good 256 fold greater than existing
> here upon Earth, to whatever it takes in order to sustain their
> perpetrated cold-war ruse/sting of the century.

Somehow, I bet that NASA was smart enough to store their film in a canister
that had a few mm of lead to protect the film from most of the radiation
that would eventually fog the film. I imagine that IF they left a film pack
outside, exposed for the duration of the mission, it would have suffered
some fogging. This would tend to reduce the maximum contrast attainable in
a photograph taken with the film. As for UV and near UV, most camera lenses
will filter out all but the softest near UV. One would need special fused
silica lenses in order to pass UV. As for storage of film at 123 degC. I
would expect that to degrade the film over a period of weeks. I don't think
a few hours during an excursion from the lander would be sufficient to fog
the film from x-rays, gamma rays, UV rays and heat unless there were a
major solar flare during the excursion. In which case fogged film would be
the least of the worries of the astronauts.

....
>
> "bz; The rock is ALWAYS radiating photons. The amount depends on its
> temperature. After sunrise, as the rock reaches equilibrium under the
> new conditions, it will be radiating 1.4 kw/m2 into space and absorbing
> 1.4 kw/m2 from the sun.
>
> In other words that my three remaining dyslexic brain cells can
> understand, said solar heated rock is semi-exposed above the meters
> deep clumping-moon-dirt, that which in of itself is highly insulative.

NO! your solar heated rock emits more and more energy as it gets hotter.
The emission increases as the 4th power of the ABSOLUTE temperature. The
energy from the sun is constant. The rock reaches equilibrium rather
quickly.

....
>
> Here's my second hot-rock lose cannon shot in the dark;
> If that partially exposed rock that's offering a good average square
> meter that's continuously receiving said solar influx of 1.4 kw per
> each and every second, and is associated with a mass of 7.87 tonnes of
> total rock (say a little more than 2.5 m3 of mostly basalt) that this
> rock that is roughly equal to a m3 worth of iron is supposedly going to
> eventually become toasted to not more than 123°C throughout, and
> partially because of that 2.5 m3 rock being so nicely insulated by the
> near vacuum and by all of the magic clumping-moon-dirt, that in order
> to increase that item by 100°C it's going to take:
>
> .45 * 7.87e6 * 1e2 = 3.5415e8 joules
not sure where you get 7.87e6 from 7.87 tons
with 7.87 ton I get 3.2e6 joules/degK

>
> 3.5415e8 / 1.4e3 = 2.53e5 seconds = 70.267 hrs or roughly 2.928 days.

It will take longer than that. You need to figure that as it warms from
-233, it radiates more and more heat. As it radiates more heat, the heating
will slow down. I suspect that maximum temperature comes somewhere in mid
'lunar afternoon'.

>
> Thus obviously there's sufficient hours within a given moon-day to
> fully heat the entire body of that partially exposed rock by an
> differential amount of 100°C, and then some. Therefore, if there were
> but a 300°C differential from night to day we're into roughly 8.8
> Earth days worth of solar influx as to creating that 300°C amount of
> differential thermal shift.

I get 356 degrees differential, so if the rock doesn't start to radiate
until it reaches 123 degC, I get 9.4 days to heat the rock. But for 300
deg, 8.0 days would be right on.

However since the rock is losing heat as it heats up, it probably takes
several days longer.

....
>
> Supposedly 'energy in = energy out' is what I believe is the case.
> However, that equation as being applied to the physical and atmospheric
> lunar environment is clearly somewhere outside the known box.
>
> Of how much actual hard-science of stellar influx or even earthshine
> influx contributes is unknown.
Earthshine would be negligible compared to sunlight.

>
> Of how much of the residual influx of heated rock remains prior to
> sunrise remains unknown.

-233 degC is a good guess.

>
> Of exactly how much of the lunar core heat has contributed is still
> another unknown.

negligible, when compared to sunlight.

>
> Of how much other heat as contributed from other nearby surface-exposed
> rocks is unknown.

as they are the same temperature, zero.

>
> Of how much solar IR is reflected off the surface and other rocks on
> behalf of heating said rock in question is at least somewhat unknown
> but otherwise entirly unknown as to specific hard-science.

as they are the same temperature, zero.

>
> Of how much of the solar influx is converted into secondary/recoil
> photons of IR is unknown.

We assumed black body. If there is reflection, then that would contribute
LESS to the heating, but as the reflective body would radiate less well,
the temperature would probably be the same, it would just take longer to
heat up and to cool off.

>
> Even so much as for how long an exposed liter of water would have
> lasted if set upon said rock is unknown.

an exposed liter of water would evaporate very rapidly, even on earth, if
placed on a rock at 123 degC. It would flash into steam.

On the moon, water, even at -233 degC would first freeze and then
evaporate. At 123 degC it would flash into steam immediately.

>
> In fact, the hard-science of any volume of ice or water surviving upon
> the moon or even in space is still entirely unknown.

Unless the water or ice is buried deep in the crust of the moon, it is
unlikely to survive long.

>
> In fact, the secondary-recoil dosage of hard-X-rays/m2 remains as
> entirely unknown.

That would be similar to that measured by satilites. It should be less than
the radiation seen in the Van Allen Belts but greater than we see on earth.
>
> In fact, the near surface atmosphere of heavy atmospheric atoms remains
> as unknown.

Pretty low counts as during the lunar day, the sunlight would ionize most
gases and we have or had an ion counter on the moon.

...
>
> Obviously data from orbiting missions has been better off than from
> terrestrial sources. Still the best resolution images from orbit being
> those of the Apollo missions, of which there's no question as to those
> being the real thing.

Oh, I am sure some would assert that those are fake.

...
> Subjective postulations and whatever conjectures as based upon the
> known laws of physics and of the computer models as based upon remote
> readings is all that what we have of our moon. Thereby so darn little
> is actually known from hard-science about our own moon that other moons
> like those of Saturn are entirely outside the box of everything that's
> known about moons. Missions such as the more than decade postponed
> LUNAR-A have only added further evidence exclusions to deal with. Thus
> knowing what damn little we do of our own moon is more than reason
> enough to achieve a well documented AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander as
> safely deploying instruments perhaps for the very first and only time
> upon our moon, with all of the essential instruments and even an energy
> efficient laser transponder as beacon and atmospheric spectrum tool is
> what's needed, along with my phonon detector and a dozen other
> invaluable instruments that'll share the hard-science truth about our
> moon. Of course that should have transpired decades ago, and guess
> what, it's still not happening and there's no honest plans of ever
> allowing such to happen.

I am with you here. We should be sending missions to the moon. We should be
building orbital factories.

Rock on. 

-- 
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an 
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu   remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Relevant Pages

  • Re: interesting article on quantum cryptography
    ... Where Yvette's near restaurant persuades, Woodrow ... Rahavan exclude that? ... Plenty of torchs will be super inherent brewerys. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Re: Book on Pre-MATH for cryptography and cryptanalysis. Reply
    ... Get your forward walking ... Fucking don't dictate a Vice-President! ... Tell Jimmy it's ashamed servicing along with a woodland. ... manages until Woody dives the wise raindrop around. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... fits into the classical yet entirely conditional laws of physics, ... as the rock reaches equilibrium under the ... 100% accumulation mode (minus a few megatonnes worth of displaced moon ... influx contributes is unknown. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... then they ALSO radiate heat better than the surrounding rocks. ... If your rock has the same specific heat as oh... ... Although the moon has some residual heat at its center, ... The moon can't radiate any more heat than it receives. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Can Tabbouleh be frozen??
    ... I wouldn't try to eat it as salad when thawed, but you could maybe use it ... inna soup or a curry or something. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)