Unfortunately Scott, this sting/ruse is way so much bigger than even
you can imagine. I've posted this folowing in at least a half dozen
topics that I believe are related to obtaining the truth.

This may be getting some folks a wee bit off topic from group focus,
or that of my intended agenda upon Venus life (lizard folk and all),
but according to some fairly recent feedback, I've learned a thing or
two about our nasty moon, as a place that I believe we've long needed
to establish a lunar space elevator (LSE) in order to be efficiently
getting ourselves off to visiting the wizard of Oz at Venus L2, as
well as for reaching out to those thoroughly irradiated to death
snowman/snowwoman situated on Mars:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm

Here's a little typical feedback of supposed facts from: Jay Windley
)
"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun. They come from
outside the solar system, and our sun is the primary defense against
them. The particles released by the sun itself are of considerably
lower energy and thus their secondary effects in the ambient are
minimal."

My thoughts: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-moon-radiation.htm

Unfortunately, I may have incorrectly utilized the terminology of
"cosmic rays", though fortunately, I never specified upon any specific
spectrum of "high-energy cosmic rays", just pointing out that our sun
is certainly capable of tossing out its fair share of far worse things
than visible photons plus IR worth of BTUs and of those nasty UVs.
Obviously a supernovae is worth a thousand fold in terms of being
nasty, thereby from the far off generated galactic influx must offer a
measurable degree of such events, and of the secondary radiation given
off by all that infamous clumping lunar dirt should become a fairly
darn good as well as unobstructed indicator of whatever
cosmic/galactic influx. Seems fairly odd that shuch measurements
aren't common place, as where's the justification for not otherwise
providing this level of information?

The assertions or premise offered by the likes of Jay Windley, that of
our moon not only lacking an atmosphere but also without a Van Allen
buffer zone is not such a bad thing if you're out and about on the
lunar surface, seems somewhat risky if not downright lethal. I might
have come into that understanding if we're referring to an earthshine
illuminated lunar surface, but I'm not going so far if that's of any
fully solar illuminated environment while wearing a mostly synthetic
moon suit because, we're not talking about avoiding a 270 nm UV sun
burn.

Sorry about all my make-due reverse engineering logic, or lack
thereof. I was simply trying to establish upon the amount of solar
radiation that becomes hard X-Ray class. So exactly how much is it on
a typical lunar day, or how about on a good day as well as on a truly
horrific day like the past two weeks of October/November 2003?

"High-energy cosmic rays do not come from the sun" ???

Do we suppose that happens to include the likes of the last couple of
weeks of horrific solar flak?

Seems there should be some specific knowledge (excluding Apollo) of
what's what pertaining to the solar illuminated surface, as opposed to
the absolute lunar nighttime environment and, of something specific
pertaining to whatever earthshine contributes.

This task of obtaining knowledge is somewhat like my getting a grasp
upon the applied energy (thrust or torque) involved in accelerating
something the size and mass of the moon, so that it accelerates and
thereby recedes form Earth at 38 mm/year.

As worthy feedback provided from: Ami Silberman )

"The mechanisms for the lunar recession have been well understood for
decades. In a nutshell, tides cause friction between the oceans and
the ocean floors, which transfers energy from the solid part of the
earth to the oceans. One of the effects of this friction is that the
tidal bulge is off-center, and is located "eastward" of the moon. (So
the high tide actually occurs when the moon is west of overhead.) The
result of the tidal bulge being off center is that there is a torgue
effect placed on the moon, and this in turn transfers energy from the
earth to the moon. The earth's spin rate slows, the moon is speeded in
its orbit and therefor moves further away from the earth. (This
transfer of energy is essentially a transfer of angular momentum,
which is a conserved quantity.) The historical (over geological eras)
rate of recession has varied due to varying amounts of tidal friction
due to shallower or deeper oceans, and the positions of the
continents."

For the benefit of all my loyal critics, I've conceded that there's a
darn good chance that the likes of Tim Thompson has more than a few
valid points as to his version of what's what. This following page is
just another example of my learning from the pros, of accepting other
input, which may even including the likes of what Ami Silberman just
presented, that I'd not be calling flak, as there actually seems to be
some considerable worth to at least Tim's version of the lunar
recession, if I don't say so myself.
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/earth-moon-energy.htm

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA http://guthvenus.tripod.com