Re: 8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM

Here's another perfectly nifty reason for our going back to the moon,
at least robotically and then eventually onto the somewhat testy
earthshine illuminated deck.

There's simply not a great deal of spore populated dust that'll have
survived the trauma of having coexisted within the nearly cosmic vacuum
of space, unless having been contained sufficiently deep within solids
(including ice). There have been ESA affilated notions and even a
sufficient degree of soft-science pointing out that a stiff solar wind
could manage to deposit already tuff little Venus spores as is, roughly
each and every 19 months (+/- a week or so). After all, at those times
when Venus is just a bit further off than 100 fold the distance to our
moon, whereas a modest solar wind of just 400 km/s is good for a spore
delivery within 27 hours, whereas doing the math on a bad solar day
gets downright interesting as to wondering, just how long might a Venus
spore or even a diatom manage to hold it's little breath?

However folks, what's all the freaking big deal (not to mention spendy,
time consuming and having been responsible for polluting our
environment from the very get-go), about such an itsy bitsy STARDUST
satellite collection of star and comet dust?

As forwarded by Andrew Yee
Stardust parachutes to soft landing in Utah with dust samples from
comet
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.news/browse_frm/thread/f6f4f9f1c733edfc/77b889dd776d603c#77b889dd776d603c

Actually, our extremely nearby moon is by far offering us the best ever
star-dust and/or comet-dust catcher in the neighborhood. Our moon is
nearly a perfect cosmic morgue that has supposedly been around for
quite some time, and it even accommodates a thick layer of an extremely
low surface tention (meaning soft and fluffy for meters on end) bed of
bone-dry dust of it's very own to start with. In addition to having
collected vast amounts of local and distant star-dust, plus more
comet-dust than you can shake a fist full of flaming sticks at, it is
also providing itself as a darn good meteor catcher, cosmic ray catcher
and solar infused sucker of the sorts of nasty influx having given
birth to absolute loads of secondary/recoil radioactive elements to
boot. Most likely hosting a good amount Uranium which continually
gives birth to the decay elements of Radium(Ra226 and Ra228), that ever
since has been reproducing the likes of Radon(Rn222) gas by the tonnes
per day if not by the hour.

Somewhere sufficiently deep within our moon are likely to be discovered
sealed geode pockets containing a salty brine, or at least the
sequestered solids of salty remainders of what had once upon a time
been a direct result of the extremely thick saltwater-ice covered
surface. Too bad we still haven't established squat worth of anything
sub-surface or upon the dusty-surface, or even so much as sufficiently
nearby orbiting science instruments telling us a damn thing about the
local environment, of whatever minerals or other viable elements of
what our extremely nearby moon has to offer. However, it seems that I
have created a sufficiently cheap and quick fix for that.

First of all, I'm not actually the all-knowing wizard/messenger from
hell that's being Mr. anti-NASA/Apollo for sport. I'm just being the
best soul that I can at returning the warm and fuzzy favor, especially
upon those less than kind individuals and downright narly agencies
responsible for all the decades of our perpetrated cold-war(s), and
otherwise with all of my warmth and affection on behalf of having to
return the favor to all those LLPOF ruse/sting rusemasters of the
century that are related to pulling off the task of our supposedly
walking upon our moon (that could be a rather neat trick if you haven't
the means by which to get there in the first place, at least not any
where close to the nearly 47t worth, along with an unproven
fly-by-rocket lander just for making astronaut life a little more
sporting).

BTW; I'm into building upon yet another one of my new and hopefully
improved topics, that as for the moment is less stalked and summarily
bashed than most of my previous efforts that clearly get run amuck by
the mainstream status quo and gauntlet of their flak. Check out this
new and improved topic, and please do bother yourself to contributing
whatever's sufficiently on-topic, or of whatever's "credential" worthy
by way of your high standards and accountability upon such important
matters.

Compact Translunar Rockets for Microsatellites
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/bd4191ba33248c64/3e6dfada18d1d671?hl=en#3e6dfada18d1d671

This next part is merely an extract of what I've replied to Michael
Gallagher, as having been contributed within this following topic
that's supposedly overloaded with the sorts of certified "credentials"
up the kazoo that yourself and most others of your brude should admire;

8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/3dde2f877e3e4153/296e6f054bce2653?lnk=st&q=brad+guth&rnum=3&hl=en#296e6f054bce2653

According to "Astronautica / Athena-2" as having total Mass of 120,700
kg / 158 kg (via Wikipedia) is merely a 764:1 accomplishment as of
1998, thus merely 30 years after the Saturn-V slug w/o benefit of SRBs
nor SRMs is certainly taking the rocket/payload ratio in the right
direction, that is if you'd take 764:1 at 33% extra time as long for
getting there as supposedly being better off than 64:1.

>Gallagher; Look up the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM. There's your answer.
I've certainly been there, done exactly that. At nearly 47t, I believe
it's still an impressive 64:1 accomplishment that transpired in roughly
3 days days, thus 33% faster than Lunar Prospector's 4 days worth of
translunar achievement.

I need to ask; Are you still that certain your 1) and 2) are on a
viable track, or is my math of better than 64:1 verses your Lunar
Prospector at 764:1 what I think it is?
-
Brad Guth

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: stardust: andromedas strain?
    ... There's not a great deal of spore populated dust that'll have survived ... our extremely nearby moon is by far offering us the best ever ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: more nails in the theory of evolutions coffin
    ... The dust that does fall on the land gets ... But on the moon, ... More bullshit detected, PRATT Alert. ... It might seem that all is well in Evolution Land, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad News for Moon Hoax Buffs
    ... > Dirt wount fall faster than a man in a sute on the moon. ... All the dust you see has had some portion of the ... A rocket 3 feet above the ... > charge the boot ad all the dust that fliped over will fly up. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Moon Hoax people
    ... our moon is actually good for. ... There's simply not a great deal of spore populated dust that'll have ... sufficient degree of soft-science pointing out that a stiff solar wind ... our extremely nearby moon is by far offering us the best ever ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: more nails in the theory of evolutions coffin
    ... I knew that cosmic dust fell on the Earth at a rate of 15 million metric ... On Earth, that isn't a problem. ... But on the moon, ... It might seem that all is well in Evolution Land, ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast