Re: Why go back to the moon?
- From: "Brad Guth" <ieisbradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Oct 2005 09:34:24 -0700
Apparently our lunar environment and even that of raw ice in nearby
space represents MOS hocus-pocus taboo/nondisclosure. In other words,
we've been thoroughly screwed, blued and tattooed to a need-to-know and
media snookered fairlywell.
Perhaps this facet of our being summarily screwed, blued and tattooed
represents as good of reason as for us to at least go robotically back
to the moon, and the sooner the better because, there are some fools
that keep thinking this has been humanly achieved and, as a result are
betting our entire farm and last barrel of oil that it can be
accomplished again and again, as for accommodating more extensive EVAs
and with all of this somehow being accomplished in broad daylight and
without ever a hitch nor any need of banked bone marrow (yea right!
that's the MOS LLPOF ticket, as to screw them laws of physics and
exclude whatever evidence rocks your boat).
Apparently, of whatever's blowing in the solar wind and/or having been
gravity attracted or just run into at 30+km/s isn't the least bit of a
moonsuit safety factor, at least not any more so than somehow walking
upon less than a 5 g/cm2 worth of surface-tension because, it seems
that my TV set gets roughly a 0.1 mm/year of carbon/soot and other
micro debris worth of a coating per year, thus within 10,000 years I'd
have collected a meter of that extremely fluffy dust enclosing my TV
set as situated right here in River City, and I'm not all that certain
there'd be any surface-tension of 1 gram/m2 to work with.
Is the moon and of it's extremely dry environment representing that of
a zero voltage polarity?
Of course, now it seems that I'm being the bad guy or perhaps just the
messenger from hell by way of asking those silly questions that seem to
only have answers as based upon the social/political conditional laws
of physics that can't break any of those religious creation basis
rules, and thereby upon as much evidence exclusions as deemed
necessary.
This perfectly nice tidbit as to the continued damage-control on behalf
of those supposed fly-by-rocket soft landings as offered by Alan
Anderson;
>Not bedrock. Regolith. Eons of micrometeorite bombardment have not
>only eroded the surface rock, but compacted it quite nicely.
I offered my thanks and thus appreciation for that correction of
supposedly "Regolith" instead of being of whatever basalt/bedrock being
the case. However, it still seems a pretty damn nifty 6 out of 6 times
as representing sort of an extreme landing trick as having been the
case of those hocus-pocus sorts of scientifically
need-to-know/nondisclosure and otherwise of undocumented fly-by-rocket
technology landers, as per their tonnage upon arrival having managed to
never compress into much greater than an inch worth if hardly any
amount into the unusually thin deposits of lunar regolith/top-soil. I
certainly wonder all the time as to why such a nasty deposit of
moon-dust was so gosh darn reflective, wasn't even the least bit
electrostatic nor otherwise photon reactive, and as always as to why
they never bothered as to obtain those natural dark colors and deep
albedo as recorded upon those unfiltered Kodak moments while they were
there.
In physics-101 and hard-science proof-positive terminology and/or as
referenced to whatever;
How does such a near vacuum environment as having no apparent binders
and as obviously not having any terrific amount of gravity to work
with, still somehow manages as to supposedly compact such
regolith/basalt + meteorites contributed as compacted dirt even
possible, especially when other dry moons seem to have been radar
probed and thermally analyzed as having been meters deep in their
fluffy moon-dust?
Being that we still have no such hard-science upon snow or raw ice
surviving in nearby space;
It needs to be asked; why have we only conjecturs and not hard-science
about such raw ice in space?
Does this represent that space snowballs are highly compacted along
with having solid ice cores?
I can certainly fully appreciate as to what an icy proto-moon as having
somewhat recently lost its 270 km worth of such an icy coating, whereas
as thereby such ice having quite nicely compacted upon a great deal of
whatever was lunar dust and soil that was previously upon it's near
solid rock of a core. Although, what happens to such sequestered dust,
sand or soil that has been released from having been iced down and thus
having been 100% covered as per right here upon mother Earth, whereas
there's still a million fold more water vapor to work with under the
absolute hottest and driest of conditions than upon the moon?
I believe this type of exposed top-soil has been called dry-quicksand,
that's unfortunately become more than a wee bit difficult to walk upon
unless it's merely an extremely thin layer. So, unless our moon is
somewhat newish, why is there such a slight dusting, or did the solar
wind blow it all away?
Mars has certainly become nearly moon like, though even the mostly
sub-frozen environment and thus offering a relatively hardened soil via
dry-ice as binder of what Mars represents seems to impose
surface-tension limitations upon an extremely light-weight robotic
probe that's hardly sufficient for any task of digging and/or mining,
much less processing and exporting. Cut the gravity in half and exclude
the CO2 factor by a good thousand fold and lo and behold, there's not
going to be hardly any viable surface-tension unless there's hardness
of regolith/basalt bedrock as offering an underlayment of sub-top-soil
that's been somehow glued together by the horrific influx of micro and
not so micro meteorites, or perhaps massive amounts of whatever's local
and unfiltered influx of solar/cosmic radiation is the answer.
It further seems that solar/cosmic flak as well as micro meteorites,
sand and perhaps a good variety of extremely slight dust as attempting
to get into the environment of Earth hasn't hardly a chance in hell of
all that much arriving upon the surface. Of what does manage to get
through the atmospheric gauntlet has been most certainly contributing
towards displacing oceans, lakes, rivers or having become sequestered
within layers of snow and ice, and of what's eventually getting
situated where us humans walk is rather easily eroded, blown about and
otherwise frequently washed clean into our oceans, rivers and lakes
that basically makes it all go away, and then some (especially if you
included the solids contributed by way of humanity and of our mostly
bad sorts of excavating and erosive interactions with the very nature
of geology), thus in spite of ourselves we're losing our high and dry
ground at a much faster rate than any influx is contributing to the
cause. Of course upon the moon is where it WYSIWYG that stays put
unless it's having been vaporised into lunar atmosphere.
Of course the moon hasn't any of that terrestrial sorts of stuff going
for atmospherically deflecting, vaporising before reaching the surface
or subsequently having the sorts of erosions and/or surface weather
related factors that's transferring whatever arrives into nicely
flowing off into becoming moon-rivers and moon-ponds or lakes and
basins of moon-dust, although from time to time the solar winds should
have been causing a certain amount of surface erosion and thus at least
partially transferring such dirt/dust off the most vertical of regolith
and basalt bedrock, thus causing the mostly horizontal and/or basin
like zones to becoming extremely deep in such light dust that's most
likely anything but going to remain as light in color nor of becoming
all that naturally clumping.
Even upon Earth, dry sand or even coal dust simply doesn't clump, nor
would most any such bone-dry substance. Not even the supposed samples
of moon dust/dirt as supposedly having been returned to Earth, whereas
this environment offers better than a million fold more ambient
moisture to work with, still haven't managed to clump one damn cm3. Why
is that?
Why is the mere thought of an icy proto-moon so freaking
nondisclosure/taboo?
Why do we still NOT have a single interactive scientific instrument as
deployed upon the moon?
Why was there never once an efficient 100 joule +/-1° xenon strobe
transponder deployed as pointed back at Earth?
Even a 10 joule xenon strobe that could have been laser or microwave
triggered would have bccome visible to the naked eye from Earth,
especially if triggered while within earthshine. From that beam or
rather flood of photons all sorts of viable lunar atmospherics and
other near-surface related science could have become most easily and
affordably understood. Yet 4 decades of a perpetrated cold-wars and
trillions upon trillions down the toilet has gotten us less than squat
to work with.
~
Life on Venus includes your basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Russian/Chinese LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few other sub-topics of interest by; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Arguments for keeping shuttle around longer
- Next by Date: Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News
- Previous by thread: Re: Why go back to the moon?
- Next by thread: Re: What should they do when (if) they get there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
