Re: So how can we afford that ?
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Sep 2005 15:03:27 -0700
paris2; "So how can we afford that ?",
It's called disinformation-R-us. It's otherwise called diverting life
and global environment essential talents and resources, of essentially
taking and/or extracting by force from the poor and summarily giving to
the already rich. After all, there's not one red cent that actually
goes into space, it goes directly into someone's offshore tax-avoidance
bank account. Thus it's called LLPOF religious and social/political
greed, arrogance and bigotry on steroids, all without a stitch of
remorse.
Purely robotic/AI missions, such as to/from our moon and the likes of
Venus, isn't but 0.1% of what's being planned upon getting raped and
otherwise reamed out of us less than sufficiently brown-nosed minions.
Since most anything about our moon and especially if pertaining Venus
or of just about whatever's authored by little old me has become
officially usenet off-limits (perhaps because I tend to return the warm
and fuzzy favor of topic/author stalking and bashing), other than for
my being on the official receiving end of whatever flak and spermware
the good MI6/NSA folks of usenet can manage to send my way, as in
otherwise my topics are quite taboo/nondisclosure or bust, in which
case we still have these official taboo/nondisclosure Apollo archives
of their grand ruse/sting of the century to admire:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/
I guess that I'm still absolutely dumbfounded as to why these highly
official orbit obtained images of our moon haven't been highly scanned
and re-published in every science journal and textbook, especially the
highest resolution of B&W frames and otherwise sharing those of
depicting the perfectly natural color of the moon as nicely balanced or
qualified by whatever other is artificial in frame or of having
included mother Earth, as everything having been viewed from their
nearby orbit which still isn't a technical requirement of even those
being manned. Instead, we're continually shunned way from these
originals and continually offered relatively low resolution formats of
such extremely complex geological and meteor impacted moonscapes of
what's otherwise an extremely dark surface albedo as having even darker
amounts of strewn shards and of what subsequently looks like extensive
areas offering meters deep moon-dirt as having been collecting into
various low elevation pits or geological as well as large crater formed
basins, and there's even the dark golden brownish/reddish coating of
mostly iron, carbon and titanium composite dust wherever the surface
has long been displaced from such a good number of whatever created
those 100+km diameter sized impacts, that which many seem to be
indicating as nearly 20 km deep. That's actually a relatively shallow
impact that may have been due to whatever layers of ice taking up the
bulk of impact energy, though still offering one freaking heck of a lot
of vaporised and/or physically displaced basalt.
Megatonnes of moon rock resides upon Earth; at least it's a whole lot
easier to prove this statement as being true than not.
Even if you'd care to insist upon believing that our moon has always
been exactly right here for all but the first billion years worth of
the creation of Earth, then there's a whole lot of trouble in NASA's
River City, and without any doubt their Pope likes boys best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_craters_on_the_Moon
Of course there's been absolute loads of smaller than 100 km craters
and certainly a great many that are much larger, whereas presumably
those larger sorts would logically be somewhat older. However, if we
simply took a highly conservative average of 20% the radius of whatever
a given 100 km diameter sphere represents, whereas lo and behold
there's roughly 1.466e13 m3 of the moon that got pushed/deformed out of
the way, though a good portion of such may have become vaporised and/or
having physical amounts of moon stuff that obviously went somewhere,
and if perhaps originally at 3.35 tonnes/m3 represents 4.9e13 tonnes,
or 49 teratonnes per each and every nasty 100 km crater. Obviously much
of the displaced material that wasn't vaporised into becoming lunar
atmosphere ended right back upon the moon. Although, if even 0.1% had
managed to exit the lunar gravity influence, and that's not even
including the mass of whatever icy or solid meteorite had to
contribute, as such we're talking about nearly 0.5e11t that simply had
to eventually go somewhere other (such as Earth), and what if merely
0.1% of that portion actually arrived upon the surface, as that's still
a whopping though conservative 0.49e8t or 49 megatonnes worth of lunar
remains as having been deposited upon Earth per each of those 100 km
craters upon the moon.
I wonder how many 99~125 km class of craters there actually are?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_craters_on_the_Moon
BTW; according to this calculator
http://grapevine.abe.msstate.edu/~fto/tools/vol/partsphere.html
And just fot the sake of uning round numbers, whereas I'm clearly
outside the box by way of having to imply a 20% radius depression worth
of a 200 km sphere, that which might help us to similate the sorts of
volumetric impression that's associated with a typically 5:1 ratio of
diameter to depth of what's considered as a 100+km moon crater, as such
this volume becomes worth 1.173e14 m3
Therefore 1.173e14 x 3.35t = 3.93e14 tonnes worth of the lunar surface
that got reshaped, vaporised and/or entirely displaced away from the
scene of the crime by way of what a meteor that must have been a good
10 km worth of an icy coated diameter, thus added it's volume of
5.236e11 m3 as having impacted the moon as whatever velocity you'd care
to imagine.
Good grief folks; not to even mention the sizable meteor itself, that's
certainly offering a rather serious bunch of moon-rock that has got to
already be situated right here upon Earth, whereas as slight as 0.1%
arriving towards the vicinity of our much thicker atmosphere of the
time and, having obviously surrendered to the gravity grip of mother
Earth is suggesting an influx of 0.173e12t or 173 gigatonnes, and if
only 0.1% of that managed to survive reentry in order to have landed
safely, in which case we're talking about receiving a mostly basalt
deposit of 173 megatonnes of moon rock per 100+km crater.
As bad as I am with math, I came up with better than 84 of those 99~125
km class of impact craters, thus of the relatively midlife-crisis of
lunar history having been getting itself pulverised has potentially
contributed 84 * 173e6t = 14.5e9 tonnes of mostly basalt that's
somewhere upon and/or having been assimilated into mother Earth after
every 100~110 thousand year reset/cycle of terrestrial ice having
re-excavated and thus reshaped the surface of Earth. Remember that if
it weren't for those nifty ice-age cycles, the ongoing erosion plus
whatever cosmic influx of solids and perhaps a slight global shrinkage
factor would have the livable dry portion of this terraformed planet
down to 10%. As it is, we're surviving on perhaps 15% of what's
sufficiently dry but not too dry, nor too damn cold, too flooded/swamp
like or otherwise too high of altitude to count. So, unless our DNA/RNA
mutates into reverting our physiology into having gills, chances are
that it's going to get real crowded and testy without an affordable
reserve of geological/fossil fuel to spare.
~
Life upon Venus, Township w/Bridge and ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
.
- References:
- So how can we afford that ?
- From: paris2012
- So how can we afford that ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Could Falcon 9 compete with the Stick?
- Next by Date: Re: Could Falcon 9 compete with the Stick?
- Previous by thread: Re: So how can we afford that ?
- Next by thread: Re: So how can we afford that ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
