Re: I take objection to NASA's Mars plans!

On 9 Aug 2005 22:47:04 -0700, "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Cardman,
>I see that you're quit intellectually young and thus inexperienced,

Except that neither is true.

You could say that space exploration, cosmology, particle physics,
astrobiology, and astronomy (in terms of other "worlds") is a hobby of
mine that started quite young.

>in
>that you haven't a freaking clue as to what Kodak film and of those
>unfiltered moments had to offer, as to anyone taking their unfiltered
>photographs from the raw and highly reactive surface of the moon.

That I see. You once again ignore that their camera and film was
specially designed to handle these environmental concerns.

Here is some links to educate yourself...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-362/ch1.htm
http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/lan/apolcams.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/moon/2.htm

The popular German manufacturer Hasselblad made that camera. You can
always ask them how they dealt with this extreme environment.

>Oops sorry; it seems that you don't know of whatever's reactive and
>what isn't.

And NASA has been doing photography in space ever since.

>Unlike the fine CCD camera within your telephone, good old Kodak film
>has somewhat of a sensitive aversion to the likes of recording
>near-blue photons, even near-UV plus a slight portion of the UV
>spectrum to boot.

The film that they used was specially made for this use. How many
rolls of film have you used with 200 exposures on each reel?

>Normally our thick and water soaked terrestrial
>atmosphere accomplishes the vast bulk of such spectrum filtration as
>spectrum moderation, thus unless our moon has an invisible atmosphere

It has a very thin atmosphere composed of 25% Helium, 25% Neon, 23%
Hydrogen, 20% Argon, then the other trace gases that make up the
remaining 7% are mainly Methane, Ammonia and Carbon Deoxide.

And here you are questioning my knowledge.

>that's considerably more populated with the necessary reactive atoms
>than having been reported by our radiation and impact proof astronauts
>as they strolled about essentially moonsuit ***-naked through a few cm
>worth of clumping moon dirt that was 55+% albedo/reflective to boot,
>then perhaps those conditional laws of physics and skewed science to
>suit whatever the social/political agenda actually do exist.

This is all well and nice, but most low energy particles simply bounce
off whatever they hit. It is true that high energy particles can go
through most things though.

>I appreciate your analogies as to WW-II never happening and, of
>whatever else you'd like to share but, none of that alters the regular
>laws of physics, nor of the hard-science by way of those Kodak moments
>that generally suck if suggested as being obtained from the raw and
>reactive surface of our extremely dark and otherwise extremely dusty
>moon, just like stipulated by other than NASA/Apollo moderated science
>plus anyone that isn't a certified LLPOF borg of your mainstream status
>quo.

If you cannot understand how they can take photos in space, and on the
Moon, then I guess that you never will.

>BTW; what's "doom and gloom" about the truth and nothing but the truth?

You do not know the truth.

>My point is that we do in fact need to at least robotically land and
>deploy a degree of basic science technology upon the moon,

Changing the subject then.

>thus
>obtaining moon-science as well as Earth-science that actually matters
>to open minded scientific folks as well as the greater body of
>humanity. Unlike yourself, I tend to beiieve such efforts may soon
>matter to that of salvaging what's left of our environment, as without
>further question. Getting the likes of ISS into station-keeping at the
>EM-L2/ME-L1 zone of a mutual though obviously an interactive
>gravity-well is just the tip of this biggest ever win-win for humanity
>and of our environment. Obviously you'll have to officially disagree
>with that and with anything else I have to share.

So first you are all on about the dangerous of space radiation, where
now you wish to move the not suitably shielded ISS out of it's nice
safe LEO so that these astronauts can get a nice extra radiation dose.

Not to forget of course that the ISS is currently in the wrong orbit
to easily be moved out there.

>> And since everyone, except you and a couple of your friends, believes
>> that NASA really did land on the Moon, where you simply won't convince
>> them otherwise, then this is proof positive that one Brad Guth is
>> simply wasting his time.
>
>A good set of blinders, high density ear plugs and even a darn good
>intellectual flatulence breathing filter works terrific any time
>there's notions and/or the truth and nothing but the truth that doesn't
>quite jive with thy mindset, which is exactly what Hitler counted upon
>and essentially got all the way up until the very end, and obviously
>that's exactly what helped rid Earth of those supposedly nasty Cathars
>which were merely the closest souls upon Earth to the likes of Jesus
>Christ that ever was, so I suppose it's a good thing we got rid of
>those Christ like bastards before they could accomplish too much of
>those intolerable good deeds.

Let me try this a different way. As if NASA had never actually landed
on the Moon, then don't you think that Russia would say something? As
they owe the US no favours, where they currently fully agree that NASA
really did land people on the Moon.

In fact they sent a couple of their own craft to orbit the Moon, where
they would certainly have taken some space photos. And so to conclude
that NASA never landed on the Moon would turn this into a conspiracy
involving two rival space organizations.

>Regardless of the hard-science matter of facts, you keep talking as
>though we've been there and done that naked moonsuit walking thing,

That they did. All those years of slow development, ever since JFK
gave his "to the Moon" speech, is well documented in history,
including nice photo and video evidence.

>even though the available hard-science simply isn't there to behold any
>more so than are the regular laws of physics.

Yes, where we all know about your physics skills. I did physics to
begin with, then moved into chemistry, then I have been more
interested in physics ever since.

>I could give you many examples of what's doable and what's not,

I seem to recall your KBO objects into Venus plan. I can only say that
we are all thankful that you do not work for NASA.

>but then I'm sequestered into
>sticking with using hard-science and of the regular laws of physics
>which means, of any such fly-by-rocket lander as manned and especially
>as robotic/AI has got to have it's R&D prototypes well documented, thus
>easily scaled as per demonstrated right here upon good old mother
>Earth,

You may care to notice that t/Space very recently did a drop test of
their CXV model to test out the parachutes and physics involved with
this splash down.

Seems like an early step in NASA's CEV plan actually going places.

Maybe you should pay attention this time, when you was obvious
sleeping, or not yet born, during the 60s.

>that plus having outfitted the necessary sharp cut-off and/or
>desired spectrum band-pass optical filter(s) as applied to any Kodak
>film based camera,

Time moves on. Their latest cameras could well be digital. So there
would be no actual film.

>as would have been essential in order to avoid the
>extremely near-blue cast or bluish color skew of artificial as well as
>reactive natural items as being so exposed to such a horrific intensity
>of the raw solar spectrum,

Let me put this in a way that even a goldfish could understand.

As should be painfully obvious to any camera user their common film
does not capture much infrared or ultraviolet light. Had it done so,
then your photos would look very much different.

And so photographic film is aimed to react with the visible light
spectrum. Anything above or below this does not react with the film.

NASA's moon camera would be shielded against any low frequency light
radiation. Not unlike your camera on Earth is, but of course much
better.

Now it is true to say that high energy particles can have a good shot
at passing through most things. And yes these can indeed pass right
through this camera.

The flaw in your theory is that the frequency of this radiation is
very much higher up the frequency range. Past visible light, past
ultra violet, past microwaves, and possibly even way up right into
gamma rays.

You should know that even microwaves should not get through, when your
microwaves ovens tend to do well enough to avoid cooking their owners.

So any of this high frequency light passing through this film would
not react with it at all. It may make a minute hole, knock out a few
atoms, but that is it. Since such high energy particles are quite
rare, then they certainly would not notice such minor damage.

More likely is that it would punch a hole right into your astronaut's
liver. Fortunately the human body can repair such damage over time,
but not damage to the CNS of course.

And so you can now understand how NASA can take photos in space with
energetic light particles bouncing around all over the place. As
photographic film reacts to the visible light spectrum.

>that which obviously included such a great
>amount of near-UV and UV energy, along with the secondary/recoil worth
>of near-blue photons of which the their Kodak film (color as well as
>B&W) was extremely sensitive to.

Shielding. The astronaut eyes were less shielded, where is why they
tended to see a little more. That is where this misconception came
from.

>Perhaps you should stick with your proven forms and of these MI5/NSA
>forums of space-toilet conditional physics and evidence exclusions
>without remorse, remaining as intellectually blind and thereby as
>incest bigoted as you are. That way you will not ever become
>independently smart enough as to become disappointed when the crapolla
>hits the really big fan.

Why do you exactly aim to quote false information that even your thick
skull most know to be false? I am sure that other people must have
shown you a lot better proof than what I have.

Cameras that have been in space and the photos that they have taken is
proof enough.

>BTW; I like your closing infomercial rantology of MOS conditional
>physics that sucks and blows at the same time. Obviously ion thrusters
>and even conventional rocket thrusting are utilized for keeping things
>in proper orbit because it's merely the sporting sort of thing to be
>doing, apparently not ever because of any coefficient factors of
>physical drag.

Sure there is drag. The ISS is not fully outside the Earth's
atmosphere, which is why it needs the occasional boost.

>> So it requires no energy to move through space. Starting and stopping
>> can be considered the hard bit.
>
>Silly me; here I'd thought there were 1e9 to 1e12 atoms/m3 to deal
>with, not to mention whatever micro debris that can't possibly be
>detected until it's too late. I must have missed something about space
>and for being situated upon the moon as being nearly an absolute
>vacuum, thus essentially as empty as your head that's been replaced
>with a borg ***-brain. Perhaps you should inform NASA that they need
>not bother with future micro thrusters for sustaining whatever
>velocity, or for otherwise keeping whatever stuff from falling out of
>the sky. Of course, this form conditional physics must also explain as
>to why comets are displaying such nifty trails because there's nothing
>out there slowing them suckers down,

The solar wind pushes out the comet's tail, but the gravity of the Sun
will cause the comet to accelerate on the way in, then to deaccelerate
on the way out.

>and as to why our moon gave off
>such a 900,000+ km trail worth of mostly sodium atoms as having nothing
>to do with any Vt coeficient of whatever's friction. Thus obviously I'm
>so horribly confused by all of those regular laws of Physics and of
>whatever hard-science that's simply bogus because, such truth worthy
>nonsense simply doesn't uphold to any of your cloak and dagger
>MI5/NSA~NASA/Apollo scriptures as recorded within their perpetrated
>cold-war pagan bible.

I am left wondering if you actually know real physics, or simply
choose to ignore it?

This reminds me that I once read a conspiracy theory on the WTC and
how the military aircraft could have made it in time to stop these
planes, but simply did not.

Apart from the confusion at the time then this person based his
calculations on their aircraft's top speed, thereby ignoring that
aircraft are not allowed to break the sound barrier over land.

>END RANT

So, all conspiracy theory then, while ignoring basic physics.

Cardman.
.

Quantcast