Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least bit hollow?
Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 (Selene L1)?
Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
I’ve gotten pretty much nothing but the usual damage-control and naysay gauntlet of systematic topic/author grief and avoidance about our potentially hollow moon, anf therefore I’ve revised this topic introduction from my original rant of “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to “Our 0.1<1% hollow moon”, and not that it really matters because the mainstream still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing media to pick up on any notions of such.
Water or even ice exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the nearly infinite vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or if you like molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero delta-V, and especially upon being lost to that solar wind when situated within such an extreme vacuum and damn little if any magnetosphere.
If there’s anything holding a given molecule of fluid or icy h2o together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind). According to the most recent science, apparently not even the extreme surface cold of –397°F within a polar crater shadow is enough to hold molecules of ice at 3e-15 bar, as well as suggesting there’s minimal if any significant residual core heat.
The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s also rather mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely terrific shell. Within or especially under that tough shell is where life as we know it could with some applied technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (including geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated volumes to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby whatever task of maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable problem.
With near zero gravity as within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly compacted) substance or soft mineral matrix that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation and subsequent speculation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.
Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of 2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our lifeboat)
The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a thick layer of protective ice. Of somewhat newer and much smaller diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%, with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of < 2:1. However, one of the most recent LRO discovered crater like hole or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small and suggesting as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a significant vertical hole or cave like entrance formation, and there should be others).
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
I’ve gotten pretty much nothing but the usual damage-control and naysay gauntlet of systematic topic/author grief and avoidance about our potentially hollow moon, anf therefore I’ve revised this topic introduction from my original rant of “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to “Our 0.1<1% hollow moon”, and not that it really matters because the mainstream still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing media to pick up on any notions of such.
Water or even ice exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the nearly infinite vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or if you like molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero delta-V, and especially upon being lost to that solar wind when situated within such an extreme vacuum and damn little if any magnetosphere.
If there’s anything holding a given molecule of fluid or icy h2o together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity (although naked pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind). According to the most recent science, apparently not even the extreme surface cold of –397°F within a polar crater shadow is enough to hold molecules of ice at 3e-15 bar, as well as suggesting there’s minimal if any significant residual core heat.
The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s also rather mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely terrific shell. Within or especially under that tough shell is where life as we know it could with some applied technology manage to survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (including geode pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated volumes to suit), there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby whatever task of maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be an insurmountable problem.
With near zero gravity as within the offset core of our extremely unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow (poorly compacted) substance or soft mineral matrix that's sandwiched between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing interpretation and subsequent speculation that our Selene/moon is in fact usability hollow.
Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of 2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our lifeboat)
The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a thick layer of protective ice. Of somewhat newer and much smaller diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%, with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of < 2:1. However, one of the most recent LRO discovered crater like hole or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small and suggesting as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a significant vertical hole or cave like entrance formation, and there should be others).
The 0.1<1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
Before the Apollo missions we knew almost nothing about the interior of the Moon. The Apollo missions left seismometers on the lunar surface that have allowed us to deduce the general features of the Lunar interior by studying the seismic waves generated by "moonquakes" and occasional meteor impacts
> > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > > bit hollow?
> > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > > (Selene L1)?
> > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> > ~ BG
> I’ve gotten pretty much nothing but the usual damage-control and > naysay gauntlet of systematic topic/author grief and avoidance about > our potentially hollow moon, anf therefore I’ve revised this topic > introduction from my original rant of “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to > “Our 0.1<1% hollow moon”, and not that it really matters because the > mainstream still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing media to > pick up on any notions of such.
> Water or even ice exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the nearly > infinite vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly > demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and > oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original > mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or if > you like molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much > when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero > delta-V, and especially upon being lost to that solar wind when > situated within such an extreme vacuum and damn little if any > magnetosphere.
> If there’s anything holding a given molecule of fluid or icy h2o > together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual > atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of > good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity > (although naked pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise > versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if > there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind). According > to the most recent science, apparently not even the extreme surface > cold of –397°F within a polar crater shadow is enough to hold > molecules of ice at 3e-15 bar, as well as suggesting there’s minimal > if any significant residual core heat.
> The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s also > rather mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely > terrific shell. Within or especially under that tough shell is where > life as we know it could with some applied technology manage to > survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of > exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (including geode > pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated volumes to suit), > there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby > whatever task of maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be > an insurmountable problem.
> With near zero gravity as within the offset core of our extremely > unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of > that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow > (poorly compacted) substance or soft mineral matrix that's sandwiched > between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and > mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing > interpretation and subsequent speculation that our Selene/moon is in > fact usability hollow.
> Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were > limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust > protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and > otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of > 2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as > representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would > make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our > lifeboat)
> The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt > crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like > pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as > is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
> Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their > diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a > thick layer of protective ice. Of somewhat newer and much smaller > diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%, > with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of < > 2:1. However, one of the most recent LRO discovered crater like hole > or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small and suggesting > as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a > significant vertical hole or cave like entrance formation, and there > should be others).
> The 0.1<1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
> Before the Apollo missions we knew almost nothing about the interior of the > Moon. The Apollo missions left seismometers on the lunar surface that have > allowed us to deduce the general features of the Lunar interior by studying > the seismic waves generated by "moonquakes" and occasional meteor impacts
Then do tell us how and/or why that that extremely massive and otherwise unusual moon of ours is so crust populated with mascon issues, and otherwise having such an offset core (especially since the farside crust is worth <150 km and heavy mineral saturated to boot.
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
Parrot David Staup has offered the usual mainstream status quo of everything new pertaining to our moon matching with his cloak and dagger Apollo era science, without one iota of any exception or implied obfuscation.
Then do tell us, David Staup, as to exactly how and/or why that extremely massive and otherwise unusual moon of ours (by far the most substantial via planet:moon ratio) became so unusually thick crust populated with those pesky mascon issues, and otherwise having such an offset core mass (especially having to be offset since the farside crust is worth <150 km and heavy mineral saturated to boot, without any seismic indications of there being anything the least bit (not even 0.1%) hollow or fluid worthy to work with.
His purely subjective and otherwise parrot like infomercial script about our moon simply isn't all that constrictive, nor informative outside of whatever a kosher approved LeapFrog and/or pop-up publication of animated and false colorized and/or decolorized eyecandy and all the usual parrot training has to offer.
btw; in the unavoidable UV fluorescence is where that physically dark surface of our Selene/moon isn't that of a monochrome light-gray, much less inert and oddly being selectively retro-reflective at the same time, though just within those Apollo landing sites. Even raw sodium gives off an amberish color when UV excited, and many other local minerals or raw elements should have been offering their color spectrums of something violet~purple to even somewhat bluish hues (especially as having been optically unfiltered and unavoidably given off by many of not via most Apollo items, including those stark white moonsuits).
> > > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > > > bit hollow?
> > > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > > > (Selene L1)?
> > > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> > > ~ BG
> > I’ve gotten pretty much nothing but the usual damage-control and > > naysay gauntlet of systematic topic/author grief and avoidance about > > our potentially hollow moon, anf therefore I’ve revised this topic > > introduction from my original rant of “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to > > “Our 0.1<1% hollow moon”, and not that it really matters because the > > mainstream still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing media to > > pick up on any notions of such.
> > Water or even ice exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the nearly > > infinite vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly > > demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and > > oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original > > mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or if > > you like molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much > > when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero > > delta-V, and especially upon being lost to that solar wind when > > situated within such an extreme vacuum and damn little if any > > magnetosphere.
> > If there’s anything holding a given molecule of fluid or icy h2o > > together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual > > atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of > > good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity > > (although naked pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise > > versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if > > there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind). According > > to the most recent science, apparently not even the extreme surface > > cold of –397°F within a polar crater shadow is enough to hold > > molecules of ice at 3e-15 bar, as well as suggesting there’s minimal > > if any significant residual core heat.
> > The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s also > > rather mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely > > terrific shell. Within or especially under that tough shell is where > > life as we know it could with some applied technology manage to > > survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of > > exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (including geode > > pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated volumes to suit), > > there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby > > whatever task of maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be > > an insurmountable problem.
> > With near zero gravity as within the offset core of our extremely > > unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of > > that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow > > (poorly compacted) substance or soft mineral matrix that's sandwiched > > between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and > > mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing > > interpretation and subsequent speculation that our Selene/moon is in > > fact usability hollow.
> > Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were > > limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust > > protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and > > otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of > > 2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as > > representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would > > make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our > > lifeboat)
> > The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt > > crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like > > pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as > > is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
> > Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their > > diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a > > thick layer of protective ice. Of somewhat newer and much smaller > > diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%, > > with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of < > > 2:1. However, one of the most recent LRO discovered crater like hole > > or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small and suggesting > > as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a > > significant vertical hole or cave like entrance formation, and there > > should be others).
> > The 0.1<1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
> > Before the Apollo missions we knew almost nothing about the interior of the > > Moon. The Apollo missions left seismometers on the lunar surface that have > > allowed us to deduce the general features of the Lunar interior by studying > > the seismic waves generated by "moonquakes" and occasional meteor impacts
> Then do tell us how and/or why that that extremely massive and > otherwise unusual moon of ours is so crust populated with mascon > issues, and otherwise having such an offset core (especially since the > farside crust is worth <150 km and heavy mineral saturated to boot.
> ~ BG
I suspect less gravity and less mass means more mascon issues. It is less separated and has had less time to separate in that the moon is pretty much frozen in place.
But then again what do I know..................Trig
> > > > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > > > > bit hollow?
> > > > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > > > > (Selene L1)?
> > > > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > > > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > > > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> > > > ~ BG
> > > I’ve gotten pretty much nothing but the usual damage-control and > > > naysay gauntlet of systematic topic/author grief and avoidance about > > > our potentially hollow moon, anf therefore I’ve revised this topic > > > introduction from my original rant of “The 1~10% hollow moon” as to > > > “Our 0.1<1% hollow moon”, and not that it really matters because the > > > mainstream still isn’t buying into any of it, nor allowing media to > > > pick up on any notions of such.
> > > Water or even ice exposed at the environment of 3e-21 bar (the nearly > > > infinite vacuum as found at Selene L1) pretty much instantly > > > demoleculizes itself into something less than atoms of hydrogen and > > > oxygen, and that’s pretty much regardless of its volume and original > > > mass. Therefore, the extremely weak Newtonian force of gravity or if > > > you like molecular binding force isn’t necessarily worth all that much > > > when the water or whatever fluid element itself represents a zero > > > delta-V, and especially upon being lost to that solar wind when > > > situated within such an extreme vacuum and damn little if any > > > magnetosphere.
> > > If there’s anything holding a given molecule of fluid or icy h2o > > > together, it’s those strong electrostatic, diamagnetic plus the usual > > > atomic and subatomic binding forces and whatever subsequent worth of > > > good old pressure that doesn’t necessarily involve or require gravity > > > (although naked pressure simply can’t coexist w/o gravity or vise > > > versa, whereas artificial pressure or vacuum can only coexist if > > > there’s a shell or artificial energy field of some kind). According > > > to the most recent science, apparently not even the extreme surface > > > cold of –397°F within a polar crater shadow is enough to hold > > > molecules of ice at 3e-15 bar, as well as suggesting there’s minimal > > > if any significant residual core heat.
> > > The extremely thick (50<150 km) and robust basalt crust that’s also > > > rather mineral saturated about our Selene/moon offers an absolutely > > > terrific shell. Within or especially under that tough shell is where > > > life as we know it could with some applied technology manage to > > > survive, as well as manage to contribute to terrestrial matters of > > > exotic minerals and lots more. At 0.1% hollow (including geode > > > pockets, cavernous layers or easily excavated volumes to suit), > > > there’s certainly no shortage of worthy habitat volume, and thereby > > > whatever task of maintaining of atmospheric pressure simply can’t be > > > an insurmountable problem.
> > > With near zero gravity as within the offset core of our extremely > > > unusual moon, and perfectly good odds that the substance outside of > > > that solid core being of a relatively low density and/or semi-hollow > > > (poorly compacted) substance or soft mineral matrix that's sandwiched > > > between that offset core and the otherwise extremely dense, thick and > > > mineral saturated basalt crust, as such is what drives my continuing > > > interpretation and subsequent speculation that our Selene/moon is in > > > fact usability hollow.
> > > Even if this hollow or easily excavated under-crust potential were > > > limited as to a volume of 0.1%, as such this kind of nicely crust > > > protected volume would represent a terrific off-world outpost and > > > otherwise failsafe kind of habitat that’s existing as is. (0.1% of > > > 2.2e19 m3 is 2.2e16 m3, and that’s hardly insignificant, as > > > representing 3.26e6 m3 for each and every man, woman and child would > > > make for a pretty nifty interstellar spacecraft, or call it our > > > lifeboat)
> > > The unusually mineral saturated and otherwise mascon populated basalt > > > crust itself could also offer existing passages and/or geode like > > > pockets, as deep enough and volumetric enough to safely utilize as > > > is. In fact, it might be extremely odd if such voids didn’t exist.
> > > Most of those larger lunar craters are unusually shallow (>1% of their > > > diameter), as though that original surface prior to impact having a > > > thick layer of protective ice. Of somewhat newer and much smaller > > > diameter craters offer bedrock impression or morph depths of <10%, > > > with only a few exceptions that suggest diameter/depth ratios of < > > > 2:1. However, one of the most recent LRO discovered crater like hole > > > or possibly an old geothermal vent that’s kind of small and suggesting > > > as having a much greater depth than its diameter (in other words a > > > significant vertical hole or cave like entrance formation, and there > > > should be others).
> > > The 0.1<1% hollow moon / Brad Guth
> > > Before the Apollo missions we knew almost nothing about the interior of the > > > Moon. The Apollo missions left seismometers on the lunar surface that have > > > allowed us to deduce the general features of the Lunar interior by studying > > > the seismic waves generated by "moonquakes" and occasional meteor impacts
> > Then do tell us how and/or why that that extremely massive and > > otherwise unusual moon of ours is so crust populated with mascon > > issues, and otherwise having such an offset core (especially since the > > farside crust is worth <150 km and heavy mineral saturated to boot.
> > ~ BG
> I suspect less gravity and less mass means more mascon issues. > It is less separated and has had less time to separate in > that the moon is pretty much frozen in place.
> But then again what do I know..................Trig
That seems to be the situation for most everyone, as not objectively knowing the internal matrix of what makes up our moon is common place. However, common sense and deductive reasoning as based upon physics and the best available science is going to suggest that the offset mascon core has created a very low density and/or semi-hollow nature for that in between material that's just under that extremely thick and robust basalt crust.
What was needed as of decades ago was a basic threesome of widely spaced underground or at least bedrock implanted seismology Instruments reporting data back to us. Instead we've got nothing that's peer accepted as viable science, as well as most all of the original Apollo data is MIA, and even 99.9% of our public funded LRO science isn't being shared.
> On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > > bit hollow?
> > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > > (Selene L1)?
> > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> > ~ BG
> Parrot David Staup has offered the usual mainstream status quo of > everything new pertaining to our moon matching with his cloak and > dagger Apollo era science, without one iota of any exception or > implied obfuscation.
> Then do tell us, David Staup, as to exactly how and/or why that > extremely massive and otherwise unusual moon of ours (by far the most > substantial via planet:moon ratio) became so unusually thick crust > populated with those pesky mascon issues, and otherwise having such an > offset core mass (especially having to be offset since the farside > crust is worth <150 km and heavy mineral saturated to boot, without > any seismic indications of there being anything the least bit (not > even 0.1%) hollow or fluid worthy to work with.
> His purely subjective and otherwise parrot like infomercial script > about our moon simply isn't all that constrictive, nor informative > outside of whatever a kosher approved LeapFrog and/or pop-up > publication of animated and false colorized and/or decolorized > eyecandy and all the usual parrot training has to offer.
> btw; in the unavoidable UV fluorescence is where that physically dark > surface of our Selene/moon isn't that of a monochrome light-gray, much > less inert and oddly being selectively retro-reflective at the same > time, though just within those Apollo landing sites. Even raw sodium > gives off an amberish color when UV excited, and many other local > minerals or raw elements should have been offering their color > spectrums of something violet~purple to even somewhat bluish hues > (especially as having been optically unfiltered and unavoidably given > off by many of not via most Apollo items, including those stark white > moonsuits).
Odd how the regular laws of physics don't seem to work for our moon.
Perhaps that moon really does not involve 2e20 N/sec, because otherwise that much force would be measurably heating up our planet.
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
Here’s yet another edited food for thought as a subtopic, about our local binary planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something odd about its interior that’s also <1% hollow to say about itself; Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 (although the element sodium is a minimal density at .97 g/cm3, not to mention lithium at .534 g/cm3). So don’t get yourselves all defensively crazy and huffy about any of this or the hollow stuff, because it’s just food or thought.
This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our naked Selene/moon interior unless that were a significant hollow within a substantial sphere and otherwise at nearly dead center, but none the less it's still worth our considering the possible implications of reduced gravity, and it’s especially what-if topic worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within its thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious indications of having an iron or otherwise dense core. However, once situated below that thick and robust crust, we can at least expect that lunar interior gravity to be nearly 10% of Earth, as perhaps 1 m/ s.
Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas could easily have created such geode hollows or even pockets of trapped mineral brines and perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of weird geological anomalies representing livable voids as deep enough within the crust as is, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s gravity may have significantly offset the original soft/molten interior core, leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising towards the extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/ Selene lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift within this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and of course always those much heavier metallic elements including thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering <10% hollow moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually worth?
At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 m3 each.
However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. Seems more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival craft (red supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it gets all the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along the way.
Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> Father Haskell: > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo Space Port) should keep this off-world outpost and the moon interior as full of happy campers.
As I'd said, given roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure should provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and accommodating whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. As you know, Earth isn't ever going to be very far away, not even if we relocate Selene out to Earth L1 is still relatively nearby, and even I can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of other precious elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently exported to Earth, or simply effectively stored for future needs.
Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such habitat units as within our lunar interior, thereby leaving 95% available as infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of whatever horrific mass and given density (say a thick swarm of tightly packed photons and electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps sustaining a small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by whatever else makes you a happy camper. Once again, a little reminder as physics food for thought: The gravity force inside a physical shell or energy sphere is always zero, that is unless it has some kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically, diamagnetic/ paramagnetic centered or somehow electrostatic isolated within this otherwise semi-hollow sphere. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
> On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > > bit hollow?
> > Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > > (Selene L1)?
> > Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> > ~ BG
> Here’s yet another edited food for thought as a subtopic, about our > local binary planetoid Selene/moon that has a little something odd > about its interior that’s also <1% hollow to say about itself; > Gravity Force Inside a Spherical Shell (is always zero) > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls
> First of all, I have never once suggested anything lower mass than > 7.35e22 kg (if anything I’ve proposed an extra mass of <262 km worth > of ice for a grand total of 8.5e22 kg), nor have I ever suggested that > our Selene/moon was 90% hollow, nor otherwise have I ever insisted the > interior density below the thick basalt crust being as low as 1 kg/m3 > (although the element sodium is a minimal density at .97 g/cm3, not to > mention lithium at .534 g/cm3). So don’t get yourselves all > defensively crazy and huffy about any of this or the hollow stuff, > because it’s just food or thought.
> This zero gravity environment of course wouldn't fully apply to our > naked Selene/moon interior unless that were a significant hollow > within a substantial sphere and otherwise at nearly dead center, but > none the less it's still worth our considering the possible > implications of reduced gravity, and it’s especially what-if topic > worthy when the bulk of lunar mass is clearly being held within its > thick and highly paramagnetic basalt crust, with no obvious > indications of having an iron or otherwise dense core. However, once > situated below that thick and robust crust, we can at least expect > that lunar interior gravity to be nearly 10% of Earth, as perhaps 1 m/ > s.
> Natural/geothermal and isotope generated gas could easily have created > such geode hollows or even pockets of trapped mineral brines and > perhaps a few as having become crystal lined volumes of weird > geological anomalies representing livable voids as deep enough within > the crust as is, as well as for the continual tidal pull of Earth’s > gravity may have significantly offset the original soft/molten > interior core, leaving a substantial hollow/caverness void rising > towards the extremely thick backside crust, as well as for the Earth/ > Selene lithobraking encounter should have caused something to shift > within this unusual planetoid we call our moon.
> If the thick and paramagnetic basalt plus mineral saturated crust with > many of those heavier lunar elements (including thorium, uranium, > plutonium and of course radium as supposedly derived from the core of > Earth plus via whatever else as having impacted Earth) are situated or > somehow having been coagulated/solidified near the surface, not to > mention a bazillion naked meteor deposits of carbonado/lonsdaleite and > of course always those much heavier metallic elements including > thorium, iron, nickel, platinum and loads of titanium, plus a little > of whatever else was part of Earth. So, for the purely what-if of > this semi-hollow moon topic, how about our considering <10% hollow > moon (2.2 billion cubic kilometers worth)?
> How many personally safe interior habitats is 2.2e18 m3 actually > worth?
> At 1000 m3 per habitat is offering 2.2e12 units. Given a wide > percentage (more than half) for a perfectly rational (meaning > intelligent) infrastructure is still going to offer 1e12 units of 1e3 > m3 each.
> However, even if we’re talking of a 1% hollow Selene is still offering > an off-world viable habitat that’s worthy of safely hosting 100 > billion units, along with 55% as still going for infrastructure. Seems > more than adequate if such a semi-hollow moon were to be utilized as > an off-world shelter or that of an interstellar survival craft (red > supergiant and helium flashover lifeboat), and of course it gets all > the better yet if it should became heavily iced over along the way.
> Along with my LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator and Counter Mass with > the terrific amount of ISS habitat interior) is what makes the to/from > aspects of utilizing our semi-hollow Selene/moon rather simple and > energy efficient, though most likely as owned and operated by China > and India (so expect to pay a hefty toll).
> > Father Haskell: > > How will you feed all 100 billion of those units?
> Chinese and India takeout from their LSE-CM/ISS (Selene L1) outpost/ > gateway, and otherwise direct fly-by-rocket shipments of fish and rice > via North Korea, and perhaps fresh fruit from Cuba (via Guantanamo > Space Port) should keep this off-world outpost and the moon interior > as full of happy campers.
> As I'd said, given roughly 55% as the lunar community infrastructure > should provide enough volume as industrial greenhouse and > accommodating whatever assortments of chickens, turkeys and pigs. As > you know, Earth isn't ever going to be very far away, not even if we > relocate Selene out to Earth L1 is still relatively nearby, and even I > can think of all kinds of ways for a continuous supply of just about > anything, in exchange for He3 and any number of other precious > elements that would be mostly robotic mined, processed and efficiently > exported to Earth, or simply effectively stored for future needs.
> Obviously we'd need to accommodate at most fewer than 10 billion such > habitat units as within our lunar interior, thereby leaving 95% > available as infrastructure for working within this 1% hollow moon.
> Remember, if most everyone is living inside the moon, Eden/Earth > stands a darn good chance of once again becoming a thriving plant and > animal sanctuary that's nearly devoid of humans and their industrial > scale polluting. (perhaps at most 1% stays with Earth in order to > repair/salvage the frail environment and help feed the other 99% of > folks living within the moon, and the subsequent visiting of Earth by > these others would become a highly restricted privilege).
> However, if our continuing recession turns into WWIII, that gets all- > out and downright nuclear dirty, plus otherwise chemical and > biologically lethal, there may be few if any safe places on Earth > worth risking further genetic mutations to your frail DNA.
> Trust me, I have a reasonably failsafe plan. It's rather complex and > certainly not perfect, but at least it's offering a whole lot better > constructive option than most any other plan of salvaging humanity > that’s designed mostly to benefit only the rich and powerful surviving > off-world, while the rest of us village idiots get to tough it out and > otherwise end up paying for everything that primarily benefits these > rich and powerful individuals (including fighting their wars).
> Btw; If a black hole were merely that of an event horizon shell of > whatever horrific mass and given density (say a thick swarm of tightly > packed photons and electrons orbiting this hollow void or perhaps > sustaining a small core of positron antimatter) as surrounded by > whatever else makes you a happy camper. Once again, a little reminder > as physics food for thought: The gravity force inside a physical > shell or energy sphere is always zero, that is unless it has some > kind of an extremely massive core that’s magnetically, diamagnetic/ > paramagnetic centered or somehow electrostatic isolated within this > otherwise semi-hollow sphere. > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Mechanics/sphshell2.html#wtls > Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Don't tell me, 3e-21 bar isn't enough vacuum to go along with the zero delta-V of Selene L1.
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
Where's the objective evidence that our Selene/moon wasn't ever covered by any thick icy layer?
What's not possible for such an interstellar craft of <8.5e22 kg?
If the south polar grater wasn't caused by having encountered Earth, than what happen to that extremely large item which caused such a terrific crater? http://imraneee.blogspot.com/search/label/Moon
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
Where's the objective evidence that our Selene/moon wasn't ever covered by any thick icy layer?
What's not possible for using Selene as such an interstellar craft of <8.5e22 kg?
If that south polar grater wasn't caused by having encountered Earth, than what happen to that extremely large item which caused such a terrific crater? http://imraneee.blogspot.com/search/label/Moon
On Nov 13, 5:27 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> BG Gravity sees to it that objects do not have a hollow core. All > evidence shows this to b reality Bert
In other words, a balloon is actually not even 0.1% hollow?
How about water balloons? How about an Emu egg or the tough soccer ball that's instead filled with a mineral brine, beer or pretty much anything fluid or muck instead of air?
0.1% really isn't very hollow, whereas displacements via liquids, muds, various oily hydrocarbons and of course other gasses (including hydrogen, helium and methane, or whatever mineral brines (alkaline or acidic) are every bit as good of hollow worthy as geode trapped air.
How solid is porous rock, such as volcanic pumice and especially that which floats? (not very if it’s 70% hollow)
How solid is diatomaceous earth(DE)? (not very, unless 95% hollow doesn’t count)
What exactly do you consider hollow, other than empty beer cans or that spare empty keg you either sit on or use as a portable urinal because your $50/month water has been shut off.
Perhaps you really need to be more open minded, or simply more hollow- head (brainless) thinking about this one. You might also care to go caving now and then, or at least for God's sake read a few of those old National Geographic issues about such underground matters. In other words, what the hell is the matter with you?
btw, what happened inside of our Selene/moon when its supposedly iron core got pulled or offset towards Earth? (how about, it leaves a void)
You do realize that the heavy mineral saturated farside crust is nearly twice as thick (<107 km and perhaps even somewhat thicker polar areas), as compared to the nearside crust (<60 km), which only means the lunar core had to have been pulled/shifted even further towards Earth.
At near zero bar, or roughly –15 psi isn’t an insignificant force to ignore, of such vacuum easily holding up a cavernous domed roof made of basalt and various minerals that are only slightly (<1.6 m/s) compressed or loaded down by gravity.
Assuming voids of trapped gasses other than common air inside; How much inward pressure can a thick basalt sphere of tough bedrock deal with, without its imploding (especially since there's an outside vacuum of 3e-15 bar and only 1.62 m/s of gravity)?
With that much outside vacuum and the reduced gravity to work with (especially deep underneath that thick crust), imagine how extremely simple and even failsafe it’ll be to excavate or simply vacate whatever’s (mud, liquid or gas) inside a given geode pocket or porous/ cavernous layer. That moon of ours could just as easily be 1% hollow as is, with the potential of becoming artificially hollowed out to 10%.
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
Yes in deed, good old basalt bedrock has 50<750 ppm of h2o. So what?
Seems our NASA LCROSS team is on serious steroids and/or hard drugs, as in cover thy butt with all the media hype, spin and eyecandy meds they can muster, or else. It’s called job security, except theirs is with loads of nifty benefits and perks like COL insurance.
They must think our president/BHO and his staff of well educated advisers are easily snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return. Because guess what folks, there’s always water to behold from creating any crater on most any planet or moon, mostly because basalt always has at the very least 50 ppm to begin with (<750 ppm). Secondly, keeping yourself warm is really not a problem, as is with keeping yourself and whatever technology cool. For those polar crater locations, Stirling energy conversions from that full spectrum of solar photons converted into electrons is really going to become nifty when there’s such a terrific thermal (light to dark) differential to begin with.
Once any molecules of water/ice are freed at 3e-15 bar, it becomes nearly explosive in how it would unavoidably react by expanding into such an extreme vacuum, and there’s all sorts of secondary IR that even manages to get into the deepest of those polar craters from time to time, contributing sufficient thermal energy to boil off or rather sublime most any raw/naked volume of ice at that extensive vacuum, not to mention the moon itself is also radiating <22 mw/m2 of it’s residual and/or thorium/uranium core heat (thicker polar crust has got to be worth at least 10 mw/m2).
The 50<750 some odd PPM of water that’s sealed in lunar surface bedrock and deeper crust basalt is one thing that’s likely sure enough there to behold. However, raw/naked ice under a crystal dry layer of physically dark carbon dust is not as likely to exist/coexist unless that moon either isn’t very old, and/or there’s water or mineral brine that’s still leaking/extruding out from a substantial geode reservoir or layer protected aquifers inside the moon that’s otherwise being sucked crystal dry by all of that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
AP / “The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.”
And yet there’s still no UV florescence imaging or public review of those original gamma spectrum readings. So, it remains pretty much insider and/or need-to-know business as per usual, whereas raw/naked ice in the extreme vacuum of space apparently doesn’t have to go by any pesky laws of physics, or any need of independent peer review.
The LCROSS 20 meter crater is basically giving up 1e3 m3 worth of displaced and/or partially vaporized basalt that’s mineral saturated and supposedly containing <250 PPM water. That’s roughly <3.5e3 tonnes worth of lunar basalt w/minerals and those ppm of water to start off with, and by taking roughly 11% of that as having been vaporized is perhaps what our NASA has claimed as having given off measurable water, that such frozen basalt by eights should have. I think the impact vaporized closer to 25% if not as great as 33%, which means the h2o content of that basalt wasn’t as great as 100 PPM, but then who’s really counting since ordinary physics and easily peered replicated science does not matter.
I would tend to favor that our physically dark lunar surface is about as crystal dry anf electrostatic charged as things within such a terrific vacuum environment could ever get, though I’ll give a very remote possibility of there being an underground artisan cache of water or mineral brine that has been gradually venting/leaking out and into just those continually frozen craters is at least technically possible, although it's extremely unlikely those unavoidable h2o vapors weren't easily detected by astronomers and their various sensitive spectrometry methods as of at least decades ago.
Here's yet another image of the sorts of crystal dry minerals that our moon has to offer. These hue saturations are not bogus/false colors, just the original mineral colors as having been enhanced on behalf of honest observationology, similar to the nifty eyecandy that Hubble gets published and accepted all the time.
From LRO UV fluorescence imaging, this amount of mineral hue saturation as secondary reflectance should be at least ten fold better yet, as well as a good thousand fold better resolution when obtained from just 50 km. With their LRO extended dynamic range, any sign of water vapor (atoms of h2o) as coming off such a naked surface of any deep crater shadowed ice would have been unavoidably unmistakable. Of course this means there really is not such raw/naked ice to behold, but instead only vaporized basalt water.
So, apparently our NASA gets to lie their public funded butts off, and the rest of us don't, because at roughly 100<250 ppm of what's supposedly accessible h2o within moon basalt, as such would have only required vaporizing a few hundred tonnes of basalt in order to provide those 25 gallons (94+ kg) of water. In other words, at 250 ppm it would only require vaporizing 400 tonnes out of the 3.5e3 tonnes of basalt in order to release 100 kg of its water, along with releasing at the very least 1000 kg of sodium (though many areas of the lunar surface are rich or saturated in sodium to the tune of <50,000 ppm), plus there's many kg worth of other minerals and of course there's 30,000<100,000 ppm O2 = 12<40t that shouldn't have been all that unexpected or hard to detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3. Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
High alumina basalts have aluminium contents of 17–19 wt% Al2O3; boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare feldspathoid- rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O contents of 12% or more.
Of course there’s lots of good old hydrogen released, and then helium 3 (3He at 10 ppb) that need not be wasted. In other words, for every billion tonnes of vaporized basalt and surface deposits we get ten tonnes and < $25B worth of 3He.
“The energy content of 3He is: E(3He)= 2e8 kWh/kg-1 ... If Fusion is the process of obtaining energy by adding things together” could be interpreted as worth <$2.5M/kg, especially as fossil duels are made spendy or illegal to use unless their exhaust emissions are fully certified as green, and average consumer cost of energy hits $0.25/ kwhr
A serious solar farm of mylar mirrors could vaporize lunar basalt rather nicely, especially in that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
At perhaps as little as one kg per 100 m2 of mylar mirror shouldn't be so unlikely. A full tonne of such deployed mirrors is thus offering 1e5 m2 of reflected and focused solar energy into a bedrock area of perhaps 4 m2.
At only 90% efficiency is offering 3.4e6 w/m2, which at 3e-15 bar should vaporize a hell of a lot of something. That collective 1e5 m2 of mylar mirror efficiency as focused down to 4 m2 should actually become worth 3.6e6 w/m2. Even if each mirror assembly was worth 100 kg is a seriously dirt cheap alternative for utilizing solar energy, whereas robotics accomplish most of that exposed physical and technical process.
On Nov 13, 5:27 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> BG Gravity sees to it that objects do not have a hollow core. All > evidence shows this to b reality Bert
You and your solid only planets and moons, as another one of a bipolar kind of mindset that wants to believe every last Apollo mission word, as though it was derived from God. So far, how is that ruse working out?
Yes in deed, good old basalt bedrock has 50<750 ppm of h2o. So what?
Seems our NASA LCROSS team is on serious steroids and/or hard drugs, as in cover thy butt with all the media hype, spin and eyecandy meds they can muster, or else. It’s called job security, except theirs is with loads of nifty benefits and perks like COL insurance.
They must think our president/BHO and his staff of well educated advisers are easily snookered and dumbfounded past the point of no return. Because guess what folks, there’s always water to behold from creating any crater on most any planet or moon, mostly because basalt always has at the very least 50 ppm to begin with (<750 ppm). Secondly, keeping yourself warm is really not a problem, as is with keeping yourself and whatever technology cool. For those polar crater locations, Stirling energy conversions from that full spectrum of solar photons converted into electrons is really going to become nifty when there’s such a terrific thermal (light to dark) differential to begin with.
Once any molecules of water/ice are freed at 3e-15 bar, it becomes nearly explosive in how it would unavoidably react by expanding into such an extreme vacuum, and there’s all sorts of secondary IR that even manages to get into the deepest of those polar craters from time to time, contributing sufficient thermal energy to boil off or rather sublime most any raw/naked volume of ice at that extensive vacuum, not to mention the moon itself is also radiating <22 mw/m2 of it’s residual and/or thorium/uranium core heat (thicker polar crust has got to be worth at least 10 mw/m2).
The 50<750 some odd PPM of water that’s sealed in lunar surface bedrock and deeper crust basalt is one thing that’s likely sure enough there to behold. However, raw/naked ice under a crystal dry layer of physically dark carbon dust is not as likely to exist/coexist unless that moon either isn’t very old, and/or there’s water or mineral brine that’s still leaking/extruding out from a substantial geode reservoir or layer protected aquifers inside the moon that’s otherwise being sucked crystal dry by all of that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
AP / “The lunar crash kicked up at least 25 gallons and that's only what scientists could see from the plumes of the impact, Colaprete said.”
And yet there’s still no UV florescence imaging or public review of those original gamma spectrum readings. So, it remains pretty much insider and/or need-to-know business as per usual, whereas raw/naked ice in the extreme vacuum of space apparently doesn’t have to go by any pesky laws of physics, or any need of independent peer review.
The LCROSS 20 meter crater is basically giving up 1e3 m3 worth of displaced and/or partially vaporized basalt that’s mineral saturated and supposedly containing <250 PPM water. That’s roughly <3.5e3 tonnes worth of lunar basalt w/minerals and those ppm of water to start off with, and by taking roughly 11% of that as having been vaporized is perhaps what our NASA has claimed as having given off measurable water, that such frozen basalt by eights should have. I think the impact vaporized closer to 25% if not as great as 33%, which means the h2o content of that basalt wasn’t as great as 100 PPM, but then who’s really counting since ordinary physics and easily peered replicated science does not matter.
I would tend to favor that our physically dark lunar surface is about as crystal dry anf electrostatic charged as things within such a terrific vacuum environment could ever get, though I’ll give a very remote possibility of there being an underground artisan cache of water or mineral brine that has been gradually venting/leaking out and into just those continually frozen craters is at least technically possible, although it's extremely unlikely those unavoidable h2o vapors weren't easily detected by astronomers and their various sensitive spectrometry methods as of at least decades ago.
Here's yet another image of the sorts of crystal dry minerals that our moon has to offer. These hue saturations are not bogus/false colors, just the original mineral colors as having been enhanced on behalf of honest observationology, similar to the nifty eyecandy that Hubble gets published and accepted all the time.
From LRO UV fluorescence imaging, this amount of mineral hue saturation as secondary reflectance should be at least ten fold better yet, as well as a good thousand fold better resolution when obtained from just 50 km. With their LRO extended dynamic range, any sign of water vapor (atoms of h2o) as coming off such a naked surface of any deep crater shadowed ice would have been unavoidably unmistakable. Of course this means there really is not such raw/naked ice to behold, but instead only vaporized basalt water.
So, apparently our NASA gets to lie their public funded butts off, and the rest of us don't, because at roughly 100<250 ppm of what's supposedly accessible h2o within moon basalt, as such would have only required vaporizing a few hundred tonnes of basalt in order to provide those 25 gallons (94+ kg) of water. In other words, at 250 ppm it would only require vaporizing 400 tonnes out of the 3.5e3 tonnes of basalt in order to release 100 kg of its water, along with releasing at the very least 1000 kg of sodium (though many areas of the lunar surface are rich or saturated in sodium to the tune of <50,000 ppm), plus there's many kg worth of other minerals and of course there's 30,000<100,000 ppm O2 = 12<40t that shouldn't have been all that unexpected or hard to detect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt Basalt generally has a composition of 45–55 wt% SiO2, 2–6 wt% total alkalis, 0.5–2.0 wt% TiO2, 5–14 wt% FeO and 14 wt% or more Al2O3. Contents of CaO are commonly near 10 wt%, those of MgO commonly in the range 5 to 12 wt%.
High alumina basalts have aluminium contents of 17–19 wt% Al2O3; boninites have magnesium contents of up to 15% MgO. Rare feldspathoid- rich mafic rocks, akin to alkali basalts, may have Na2O + K2O contents of 12% or more.
Of course there’s lots of good old hydrogen released, and then helium 3 (3He at 10 ppb) that need not be wasted. In other words, for every billion tonnes of vaporized basalt and surface deposits we get ten tonnes and < $25B worth of 3He.
“The energy content of 3He is: E(3He)= 2e8 kWh/kg-1 ... If Fusion is the process of obtaining energy by adding things together” could be interpreted as worth <$2.5M/kg, especially as fossil duels are made spendy or illegal to use unless their exhaust emissions are fully certified as green, and average consumer cost of energy hits $0.25/ kwhr
A serious solar farm of mylar mirrors could vaporize lunar basalt rather nicely, especially in that 3e-15 bar vacuum.
At perhaps as little as one kg per 100 m2 of mylar mirror shouldn't be so unlikely. A full tonne of such deployed mirrors is thus offering 1e5 m2 of reflected and focused solar energy into a bedrock area of perhaps 4 m2.
At only 90% efficiency is offering 3.4e6 w/m2, which at 3e-15 bar should vaporize a hell of a lot of something. That collective 1e5 m2 of mylar mirror efficiency as focused down to 4 m2 should actually become worth 3.6e6 w/m2. Even if each mirror assembly was worth 100 kg is a seriously dirt cheap alternative for utilizing solar energy, whereas robotics accomplish most of that exposed physical and technical process.
On Nov 6, 10:56 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where’s the objective evidence that our Selene/moon is not the least > bit hollow?
> Where's our public funded science pertaining to the Earth-moon L1 > (Selene L1)?
> Since most everything original about our Apollo mission obtained > science is either missing or remains as need-to-know or inaccessible, > where's the other 99.9% of our public funded LRO science?
> ~ BG
This 0.1% hollow moon conjecture is just plain old physics, geology and deductive logic that’s based upon the best available science, that seems entirely doable to those of us with an open mindset and a willingness to pursue viable alternatives to doing absolutely nothing.
This other humongous geoengineering via moon relocation project funding, at most representing an investment demand of $1000 from each and every person on Earth is worth $6.75 trillion, prorated as per a given century is just a whopping $10/year (less than $1/month).
If less than $1/month is still too much of your hard earned loot to ask for, in order to manage the entire long-term salvation of Earth, and a whole lot more technological advancements as value returned because of having multiple tethered elevators as well as offering at least two zero delta-V outpost/gateways and those easily managed science platforms as well as contributing loads of nifty astronomy plus off-world habitats associated within these robust tethered stations, plus those spacious units upon/within our Selene/moon that's interactively parked within Earth L1, then who am I to suggest otherwise.
I’m pretty certain that I could drop any number of impressive names that would have to agree with me, but then if your mindset is naysay or that of an obfuscation done deal, as in the words of GW Bush “so what’s the difference” (whereas obviously the ends justify the means), then I’ve got nothing that’ll make any difference.
|
