Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs

From: bz (bz+sp_at_ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu)
Date: 03/22/05 

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:21:57 +0000 (UTC)

"Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1111510544.386199.280900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> I've already re-posted this reply above

You seem to have posted it several times to several sub threads.

I even replied to the first one, I will add a bit of information that I put
in another article and repeat my reply.

http://www.unb.ca/passc/missions/moonmissions.html
It looks like many more missions have landed on the moon.
I count 7 moon landing missions that were successful.
Several of those were unmanned missions that sent back photographs.

That doesn't seem to square with other things said in this thread.

Best regards, and here is my reply to your post(s).

> Their film wasn't custom formulated, as actually standard Kodak IR film
> (IR-color or IR-B&W) would have been just the ticket,

Google has yet to yield exact information on the film used. I did find
some info on the cameras
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_Photography.html#70MIL

There appears to be a paper "Radiation Characteristics of Photographic
Film for Use in Apollo Application Experiments" archived somewhere but not
available on the web. I can't find out what brand film was used.

It remains to be seen who's guesses are right, yours or mine, unless you
have data to back yours.

> and especially
> these days with digital scanning of that original film would have been
> recording a whole lot closer on the human visual mark than for the
> unfiltered conventional film that was fairly sensitive to the near-UV
> and UV/a. But then, optical filters and/or custom lens coatings were
> always available, just not utilized (didn't have to be filtered if the
> primary illumination was that of a xenon lamp source).
>
> You do know what blacklight is with respect as to that UV/a energy
> nicely generating those near-blue secondary/recoil photons that'll skew
> most anything being photo-recorded by Kodak film?

I know what blacklight is. I don't claim to be an expert on photography.

>
> "bz; 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.
>
> First of all, you're giving those incest cloned borgs way too much
> credit.
>
> Secondly, a few mm worth of lead wouln't have helped, especially if any
> of that lead were exposed to the direct solar influx, as that's exactly
> what creates secondary/recoil hard-X-ray photons to start with.

I don't expect the lead to stop all the radiation, but MOST of the solar
radiation would be in the visible range. You don't even need lead to stop
that.

The sun does a pretty good imitation of a black body. There would be more
UV than X-ray and more X-ray than gamma. There would be alpha, beta and
heavier ions, but not a lot of them. Neutrons only have a half life of
10.3 minutes, so no neutrons emitted by the sun are likely to impact the
moon. So, exactly what is the 'solar influx' that creates secondary/recoil
hard x-ray photons and how many of them does it create?

I am sure it is NOT healthy to take a sun bath on the moon, but inside a
moon suit, I would be happy to spend a couple of hours roaming the
surface.

> "bz; As for UV and near UV, most camera lenses will filter out all but
> the softest near UV.
>
> Obviously you are assuming custom multi-coated lenses

No, I am assuming common glass lenses although I am sure that the cameras
they used had high quality lenses.

> , which wasn't the
> case, as not even the ploarised filter had special spectrum cut-off or
> band-pass coatings that should have been the case, thus you're
> knowingly discrediting not only Kodak and them physics laws pertaining
> to the film emulson-dyes, but also as to the lens manufacture and the
> likes of Ansel Adams to boot. As I said, the Kodak film was
> specifically formulated for exactly that same camera and lens as utized
> here upon mother Earth, where that combination has to deal with merely
> .25 w/m2 of the entire UV spectrum, not just that of the UV/a nor of
> the greatly enhanced near-UV of which only multicoated optics could
> have nutralized.
>

When the light gets bright, you stop the F down.

The cameras are not what I would consider 'ordinary'.

> Obviously you have an insurmountable undertow of ulterior motive and
> otherwise no real apparent function other than to stalk and bash upon
> anything and everything I'm having to offer.

No ulterior motive. I am only seeking truth. I don't claim to know it.
I do understand a little physics and chemistry, clearly more than you do
about some subjects, but I don't claim to know more about everything than
you do.

> And, apparently you're not
> nearly half as smart about photography as I thought you were,

I never claimed to be a photography expert. Where do you get your
information on what film they used?

> though
> just smart enough as to read and transcribe whatever script you're
> handed by the cloak and dagger spooks of NSA/MI6 that are the actual
> boss to whatever's performing damage-control on behalf of their
> cloak(NASA).

I wish someone were paying me for this.

>
>
> "bz; Earthshine would be negligible compared to sunlight.
>
> I never said or even suggested it was otherwise. But, as with
> everything else you've offered no specific hard-science as based from
> being situated upon the moon.

I have offered you knowledge. 1e100 photons per atom is not practical.
Lunar temperatures appear to be much more moderate than you thought.

...frothing snipped....

>
> Obviously, if I'm the one and only village idiot that's attempting to
> keep my beer cold along with my moonsuit *** that's sitting in that
> black Lamborghini, trust me this time around, them nearby and even of
> those rocks getting hotter and hotter by the hour that are a kilometer
> away are in fact getting on my nerves, and that's even if I'm hiding my
> sorry moonsuit *** behind a big rock for a little shade, as them other
> hot-rocks radiating along at potentially 1.4 kw/m2 are at least
> partially responsible for keeping my beer from staying cold.

You will have trouble keeping your beer cold, unless you dig a hole and
bury it. 123 C is NOT a comfortable temperature, but with proper
precautions, a bit of shade, paint that reflects most of the visible light
and still allows your suit to act as a black body in the infra-red, you
could survive. I just did a little research on the moon suits, on the web,
and it appears that the cooling system is based on fluid circulation
cooling the wearers skin. The heat transfer fluid is cooled by
evaporation/sublimation of water.

So, how much water is needed to cool an active person for two hours (the
EVA lasted about 2 hours 40 mins). Lets see, lets assume that an active
person generates 5 times the resting rate heat generation (I have no idea
what the actual figure is but I bet it is less than 5). So, we need to get
rid of 500 watt-hrs per hr. Just for fun lets add in ALL the solar heat
and round upward to 2kw-hr per hr for 2.7 hours or a total of 5.4 kw-hr of
heat. That is 1.9e7 Joules, that is 19000 kJoules. Water heat of
vaporization is 40.7 kJoules/mole, a mole of water weighs 18 grams. That
gives us 8.6 kg of water, or 19 lbs. Remember, I assumed total heat
absorbtion from the sun and no radiation to cool the suit. 19 pounds of
water doesn't sound like an impossible amount to carry for cooling. Oh, I
almost forgot, lunar gravity; the water will only weigh 3.2 lbs. It would
occupy 8.6 liters.

The Lunar lander [may have] carried (according to the press kit that can
be downloaded)367 lbs of water.

> A lunar EVA via earthshine offers the one and only possible salvation
> for whomever draws the short straw and has to actually leave the
> relative safety of a substantial geode pocket or deep hollow rille.

If you choose to ignore the evidence, so be it.

> There is the rather hefty option of my LM-1 (Lunar Metro) buss that's
> worth 600 tonnes on Earth and 100 tonnes upon the moon (don't ask if
> you don't want to see another few walls-of-words)

I will look on your web site.

> , otherwise there's my
> hot-tipped gyrocopter for a crew of perhaps four plus payload (this one
> might have to wait until a little artificial atmospheric terraforming
> has been accomplished).

Yeah, even in moon gravity, you would need quite a bit of atmosphere to
get enough lift, no matter what kind of blades your chopper has.

>
>
> "bz; On the moon, water, even at -233 degC would first freeze and then
> evaporate. At 123 degC it would flash into steam immediately.
>
> Actually you're being correct but somewhat conservative

I may have exaggerated a bit, the water would have to be poured on the
rock for it to flash into steam.

> , as at such a
> near vacuum the supposed 'flash into steam' event wouldn't be given so
> much as the vapor phase option, as from ice or liquid phase the one and
> only remaining option is that of extremely sparse atoms that are far
> less than atmosphere, that is unless 'tj Frazir'

I don't seem to be seeing his articles, for some reason. I guess I will
have to google for them.

> is somewhat correct
> about the lunar surface atmosphere having a wee bit of substance as
> suggested by that notion of 0.03 psi. No matters what, it's too bad
> there's still no such hard-science on that topic of ice or H2O
> surviving in space, much less upon the moon unless we're talking about
> those sealed geode pockets or of going extremely deep within.

There is plenty of science on ice/h2o surviving in space. Comets give us
data. They appear to be 'dirty snow balls' containing snow made of methane
ammonia and water.

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

What is going to make those hard x-rays?

>
> "bz; 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.
>
> OK, some of what the Van Allen zone of death has to offer is 2e5
> rads/year while situated behind a good 2 g/cm2 worth of soild aluminum
> shielding. Thus external to that shielding is going to be rather testy
> at perhaps at least 2e6 rads/year which works out to merely 228
> rads/hr, and I believe that's being extremely concervative by a good
> factor of another 10:1. So, I'll agree that a fully solar illuninated
> lunar surface should be somewhat less TBI intensive, say worth 10%,
> thus 23 rads/hr.
>

I suspect it is a LOT less than that, and most of that is alpha & beta,
which are easy to shield.

>
> "bz; I am with you here. We should be sending missions to the moon. We
> should be building orbital factories.
>
> At times I seriously wonder about you or whomever is representing 'bz'.

Sometimes I wonder about me too. Don't you wonder about you? If you don't
then I really worry about you. Did you get the e-mail I sent you a while
back? You didn't answer.

>
> I assume you'd consider the LSE-CM/ISS as one of those 'orbital
> factories'

Perhaps... but you have some problems hanging it where you want to hang
it.

I get the impression that you expect something special to happen at the
point where the earths g field and the moon's g field are equal and
opposite? Have you looked at the orbital properties? I don't claim
expertise in this field.

IF you could place something there with zero velocity with respect to the
earth and the moon, it would not stay there for long. Any slight drift
from the point would quickly accelerate.

There is another problem:
[quote http://www.asi.org/adb/06/09/03/02/092/clarke-orbits.html]
The moon's rotation period, locked to the period of its orbit about Earth,
is a lazy 28.53 days. If the moon were an isolated body off by itself,
i.e., not a satellite of Earth or some other close and more massive
dominant body, its surface synchronous orbit, i.e., one with a period of
28.53 days, would lie about 55,000 miles out. In actuality, such an orbit
would run over the shoulder of the moon's gravity well into Earth's
gravity well on the side facing Earth.
[unquote]

In other words, if you put something into a synchronous orbit around the
moon in the plane of the earth/moon, you can NOT hang it between the earth
and the moon. I think your only hope for a stable place to hang your
elevator from is the E-M L4 and L5 points.

... 

-- 
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
Quantcast