Re: How did NASA get it so wrong

MI6/NSA~NASA has had it dead wrong from their very perpetrated cold-war
get go, and that's as of nearly 4 decades ago.

Ray;
>People are not perfect and make mistakes. The people who work for
>NASA are no different. People deserve a chance to learn from their
>mistakes.
Sorry folks but, our MI6/NSA~NASA hasn't learned a damn thing, other
than how to brown-nose and cover their butts at the same time whenever
they're running out of money or having an insufficient number of
astronauts to roast.

>I dont think 100 billion dollars is a lot of money for going back to
>the moon over 13 years.
Try 500+ billions, and that's only if nothing goes terribly wrong.

>Its the best architecture. Why gamble with new concepts when we dont have
>that much money. We already tried that with the space shuttle.
This time it's also imposing 13 years worth of LLPOF plus more than
their fair share of spendy R&D crapolla than you or I can shake a
flaming stick at. Thus also another 13+ years worth of polluting mother
Earth to a rather nasty tune of 100,000:1. A thousand tonnes as
situated upon the moon equals at least a hundred million tonnes worth
of some of the worse known pollution you can imagine for our
environment (what's that going to be worth?). Just an orbiting space
probe can be worth generating 1000:1 tonnes of crapolla that we humans
upon Earth must accept and pay for with our lives if need be.

Josh Hill;
>What I see there is vagueness:
What I see is MOS LLPOF dog-wagging and infomercial damage-control on
steroids, and certainly way more than our fair share of status quo
brown-nosed sucking and blowing at the same time.

Before Russia or whomever can hope to mine squat and much less He3 from
the moon, perhaps a few and relatively small robotic missions need to
make the grade by way of their surviving a sufficiently soft landing
long enough to provide science and the resulting R&D folks that'll be
encharge of the serious robotics that'll be required, thus sharing some
real good data that's as hard of science as can be had about the lunar
environment without someone having to die for merely attempting to walk
upon the moon that in of itself provides absolutely no benefit to
science, other than perhaps demonstrating upon a method of safely
getting rid of certain humans as astronauts that were too dumbfounded
as to tie their own shoe laces anyway.

At least robotically mining the moon may have become a bit easier than
we'd thought. However, before we common folk and the likes of "tj
Frazir" and myself (in other words the apparent scum of the Earth
according to whatever the mainstream status quo has to say) can fully
appreciate "What's actually HOT and NASTY about Venus", whereas instead
we may need to regress ourselves by a few decades in order to fully
appreciate the hard-science that's recently become available as
pertaining to what's actually all that HOT and NASTY about our Moon?

I believe the task of getting whatever safely and thus having to softly
deploy items upon the extremely dusty moon is going to be doable as
long as those forms of robotics are small enough so as to being least
massive, so as to slowing the arrival of them suckers down to perhaps
10 m/s and, they are of a sufficient surface coverage configuration so
as to not summarily sink out of sight.

Earth's atmosphere at sea level is worthy of 3e19 molecules/cm3 or 3e25
atoms/m3.
Moon's average surface atmosphere is supposely 2e7 molecules/cm3 or
2e13 atoms/m3.

Although element wise, the near surface atmosphere of the moon should
also be hosting of good deal of whatever's between that of Radon and O2
that's in addition to the rather robust populations of sodium that's
not exactly an element in short supply.

"Wilson and his colleagues at Boston University, led by Prof. Michael
Mendillo, routinely monitor the Moon's tail. They use extraordinarily
sensitive cameras that can detect sunlight scattered from as few as 5
sodium
atoms per cubic centimeter."

"I think we'll look back years from now and realize that 1998 was very
special," agrees Wilson. "The fireballs on Earth were unique and we've
never
detected another meteor-related enhancement of the Moon's tail. That
includes 1999 when the sheer number of Leonids hitting the Moon was
probably
much higher than the year before. Even in '98, when the sodium density
tripled two days after the shower (that's how long it takes for sodium
to
travel down the tail the length of the Moon's orbit), the enhancement
didn't
last long. The sodium tail faded back to normal within 24 hours.

"David Asher and Rob McNaught predict as many as 10,000 meteors per
hour on
Earth and similar numbers of impacts on the Moon."

For another example upon what's good about our extremely nearby moon;
the lunar sodium atmosphere that's certainly been a whole lot thicker
as of lately and offering so much greater expanse than you'd think
possioble if going purely by the molecular speed as given by the
molecular mass and temperature, whereas for appreciating such is why we
obviously need a surface instrument reading of what's what, and not
that of another remote estimate as obtained from such instruments in
orbit.

Actually a very small and energy efficient pulsed laser beam emitting
device would have done the trick as of more than 3 decades ago, or that
of a focused Xenon strobe as of 4 decades ago. At least the math proves
that such photon energy would have been easily detected by the most
amateur of observations.

Even the notions of them Russians and/or the Chinese robotically mining
the moon may have always been a bit easier to accompliush than we'd
thought. However, before we common folk, the likes of "tj Frazir" and
myself (in other words the apparent scum of the Earth according to
whatever the mainstream status quo has to say) can fully appreciate
"What's actually HOT and NASTY about Venus", whereas instead we may
need to regress ourselves by a few decades in order to fully appreciate
the hard-science that's recently become available as pertaining to
what's actually all that HOT and NASTY as well as surmountable about
our Moon?

The task of their getting whatever safely and thus having to softly
deploy items upon the extremely dusty moon is doable as long as those
forms of robotics are being kept small and light enough so as to being
least massive, so as to slowing the arrival of them suckers down to
perhaps 10 m/s and, they are still that of a sufficient surface
coverage configuration so as to not summarily sink out of sight as did
previous attempts.

Besides the raw solar influx aspects of 1.4 kw/m2 scorching
continuously upon most any given portion of the moon for nearly a month
at a time, thus getting whatever's dark and nasty extremely hot and not
to mention damn reactive as all get out. How about for the all around
sporting heck of it all, lets say we jump off the mainstream status quo
good ship LOLLIPOP that's been entirely owned and operated by our
NASA/Apollo rusemasters, in order to discuss our going back to our moon
for the very first time, so as to get an honest to God grasp upon
whatever the lunar atmosphere is actually all about. Of course, I'm
speaking robotically since it's usually so downright hot, reactive and
physically nasty or otherwise just damn cold and nasty upon our moon,
not to mention that robotics are certainly a whole lot cheaper than
clumping moon-dirt and obviously so much safer as compared to human
efforts and, since we're talking of accomplishing this as a one way
robotic ticket to ride and there shouldn't hardly be any R&D required,
as such robots are going to be damn fast at getting the job done, and
without any need of their having banked bone marrow standing by.

Seems rather gosh darn pathetically odd that there was never one usenet
contribution or even a worthy sub-topic generated thought as to
appreciating this perfectly nifty NYT published consideration, of which
we can go back through decades before, only to uncover MOS sequestered
information as to the lunar sodium atmosphere;
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/59366d395809215b/ac201e82b060a176?lnk=st&q=lunar+atmosphere&rnum=9&hl=en#ac201e82b060a176
FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Moon's thin atmosphere extends farther than thought
(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service

Now researchers at Boston University, who two years ago determined
that the rarefied gas bubble surrounding the Moon extended 5,000 miles
high, say new studies show that the lunar atmosphere reaches out twice
as far.

The astronomers, Dr. Michael Mendillo and Dr. Jeffrey Baumgardner of
the Center for Space Physics at Boston University, said that during
the eclipse the Moon was totally in Earth's shadow, blocking the
bright moonlight that obscures observations of gases in the lunar
atmosphere. Under these conditions, the astronomers were able to
detect the faint glow of sodium gas, which serves as a marker for
other gases in the lunar atmosphere.

"We were surprised to find that this glow extended to over nine times
the radius of the Moon, to a height of about 14,000 kilometers, or
9,000 miles above the Moon's surface," Mendillo said.

The researchers say their observations have enabled them to rule out
some theories on the origin of the lunar atmosphere. They believe that
the most likely explanation is the evaporation of atoms from the lunar
surface when it is struck by light particles called photons coming
from sunlight. Sodium and other elements escape the surface through
erosion caused by the bombardment of photons.

The astronomers earlier ruled out a suggestion that the lunar
atmosphere was formed by the constant bombardment of the surface by
micrometeorites. If the micrometeorite theory was true, they said, the
atmosphere would be evenly distributed instead of being irregular in
shape, as their measurements indicate.

Another theory holds that solar wind -- charged particles streaming
from the Sun -- kicks up surface atoms as it lashes the lunar surface.
But the researchers said this theory now appeared to be eliminated
because Earth's magnetic field traps solar wind and shields the lunar
surface during the full-moon phase, when their observations show the
tenuous lunar atmosphere fully extended above the surface.
-

If the regular lunar atmosphere of any substance extends out as far as
having been reported, then obviously doing the math of what was at the
time of Nov. 1993 as having been detectable at 8r (14,000 km) off the
lunar deck as representing perhaps as few as 100 atoms/cm3 worth of
sodium, whereas that amount certainly represents quit a bit of what's
compiled upon the deck (I'm merely suggesting 12.8e6/cm3 or 12.8e9/m3),
especially since sodium is most certainly one of the lighter elements
of available mass that's associated within the mostly basalt lunar
surface that's having been continually giving birth to such sodium gas.
Obviously from meteor impacts having contributed a great deal of
further insult to injury were subsequently generating massive amounts
of additional sodium atmosphere, thereby having co-generated other
elements such as good old O2, of which the molecular speed of even hot
O2 simply wouldn't have been so easily excavated away by the typical
hot and nasty gauntlet of solar winds (100~300 km/s).

Upon being under siege my a nasty gauntlet of micro and not so micro
meteorites might easily suggest having multiplied the atmospheric
population of sodium by as great as a billion fold, making the near
surface sodium density worth 6.4e15 ~ 12.8e15 sodium atoms/m3 plus all
of the other much heavier elements as equally having been released
becoming near worthy of creating 0.028 bar.

This image and information as to Leonids impacting the Moon imposes
further notions as to what the intensity of such impacts created with
respect to the visible aspects of sodium. According to at least one CCD
expterise and of the narrow optical/band-pass spectrum filter utilized
is suggesting that perhaps as few as 40 atoms/cm3 could be CCD detected
at the far end of the sodium trail.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26oct_1.htm
Without our having a surface deployed probe taking various direct
measurements, as such we can't possibly begin to imagine what that
surface environment situation would have looked and felt like up close
and personal. Of course I've tried several times to suggest we need
this sort of raw data and, lo and behold each and every time the
mainstream status quo of need-to-know and otherwise sharing their usual
taboo/nondisclosure flak was insurmountable. Thus all of the usenet
from hell, the all-knowing BBC, FSA and whatever's associated with
brown-nosing NASA is continually out to lunch.

Besides the O2 that most certainly had to have been made available,
there's also Argon, Xenon, possibly a touch of CO2 plus certainly other
extremely heavy elements that wouldn't have been so easly be solar-wind
extracted, including the likes of existing Rn-222(radon) that's around
most of the time as having been naturally created by the available
Ra-226(radium) and via secondary/recoil reactions as having been solar
and cosmic contributed. Therefore, our moon is not nearly as devoid of
an atmosphere as we'd thought. As for deploying the modern day micro
probes of perhaps as little as one kg becomes quite doable, with
somewhat larger deployments accomplished as each of these highly
affordable efforts produces a better understanding of what other
methods can be achieved within such a thin but otherwise available
atmosphere that's actually fairly respectable considering the 1/6th
gravity factor.

According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."

"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy, but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the
heavier ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier
molecules were not present."

"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4>
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average
260m/s which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules
(m=28) on the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a
fifth of the escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all
molecules travel at the average velocity, some travel faster and leak
away. The Earth isn't able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they
average about a fifth of Earth's escape velocity."

"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."

Of course, for building and sustaining that sort of a radon atmosphere,
as for that to happen the moon requires having a good amount of
background cash of radioactive elements including Radium(Ra-226) as for
generating the Rn-222 gas, although a good amount of raw solar influx
and thus secondary/recoil reactions might otherwise accomplish this
same task, that plus the matter of accepted fact that our moon has been
identified as being considerably more radioactive than Earth shouldn't
have gone to waste.

Fortunately for us humans, the notions of terraforming our moon into
being livable (at least within seems doable), radium (Ra-226) half life
is only good for 1600 years and thus the radon as having been generated
shouldn't be around forever. In fact, if our icy proto-moon wasn't so
gosh darn newish, as such most of the radioactive raw elements simply
would have become spent and thus faded away by now, that is for other
than whatever's continually solar and cosmic contributed and supposedly
responsible for creating the amounts of sequestered He3, of which
someone eventually needs to go there and process for obtaining that
nifty substance before Earth runs itself entirely out of
fossil/geological based energy and we manage to turn our Earth into
another Mars.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & 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.

.

Quantcast