Schoenfeld wrote:
[something about moon landing hoaxes]

It is now legal to hit hoax claimants in the face as hard
as you can. Of that, I am very glad. The video of the
event was heart warming.
Socks

puppet_s,
This is what the likes of "tomcat" and "Mike Combs" are having to say,
and oddly they both believe or at least badly want to believe in every
last stinking word of whatever our infomercial NASA/Apollo fiasco had
to say about their having walked on the moon.
tomcat; The only reason we aren't in Outer Space already is that the
U.S. is afraid of ET. We certainly have all the necessary equipment
to get up there in a couple of years with a crash program.
tomcat,
I believe the first reason is a rather nasty premature death (from the
inside out) by way of radiation, especially if they're going anywhere
near our physically dark and DNA lethal moon. The second reason is
that they don't have a tenth of what your mindset is worth to work
with. A third reason is that having to launch our stuff on a stick
isn't very efficient, nor all that reliable, and it's certainly not
been cheap.

Of the easiest and most payload efficient placement for having created
a station-keeping science platform, as being that of LL-1, hasn't
materialized because of that rather nasty gamma and hard-X-ray moon
that's always nearby. Besides a few physiological complications, it'll
take more than a few tonnes/m2 worth of shielding for insuring the
safety of any such crew that's spending any amount of time within that
essentially zero-gravity nullification zone. Obviously without our
having the new and composite improved Saturn V we haven't a cost
effective nor tonnage effective alternative for getting such horrific
mass into the LL-1 zone.

You recently had this little tidbit to say about out moon:
: While there appears to be uranium on the Moon, uranium doesn't really

: throw off that much in radiation unless it has reached critical mass.

: Is that the case with the Moon?
Mike Combs; Not typically, although when Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2
went critical it was... interesting.
I then contributed the following:
That's certainly terrific status quo feedback. However, it seems as
though our extremely salty moon that was once upon a time coated in a
protective thick layer of salty ice has actually remained as somewhat
like a solid form of a Van Allen belt, having been collecting solar and
cosmic debris plus a little of just about everything that's good as
well as nasty that you and I can think of. That's why in places the
fluffy moon-dust that can't hardly support 0.5 g/cm2 is tens of meters
deep and absolutely chuck full of the worse possible radioactive debris
imaginable.

That's also why the gamma spectrum image of our naked moon looks so
downright nasty as all get-out, and this only gets much worse off upon
the solar illuminated side which adds another extra secondary/recoil
worth of hard-X-rays as representing serious insult to injury. By day
I believe we're talking minutes before DNA termination, that which no
amount of banked bone marrow will salvage. Perhaps by earthshine we're
talking hours to perhaps at best a day or so before an extra good
moonsuit occupant reaches their 100+ Rad of TBI dosage, by which
his/her banked bone marrow should save their day.
-

This is exactly why having the fully moon tethered LSE-CM/ISS and of
their taking advantage of such folks being extremely well shielded by
the 50t/m2 abode within the massive CM/ISS, and for otherwise keeping
58,000 km away from that nasty sucker, is so gosh darn bloody and DNA
butt saving important.

Because I'm such a good sport; Lets place their "Outer Space
Intelligence Center" within a portion of the 1e9 m3 abode that's
shielded by 50t/m2, as smack within the efficient tethered
station-keeping orbit of LL-1.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
puppet_s,
This is what the likes of "tomcat" and "Mike Combs" are having to say,
and oddly they both believe or at least badly want to believe in every
last stinking word of whatever our infomercial NASA/Apollo fiasco had
to say about their having walked on the moon.

Lets get this right. You are trying to tell us that a lump of aluminium
debis can be
mistaken for a retroreflector.
Thats pretty damm hard here. If you regularly mistake cats-eyes for tin
cans,
please please never drive at night. This rather noticeable difference
becomes greater
with distance. (Hit: inverse square law)
This is not hard science, and it certainly ain't rocket science, it is
simple observation.
If it's hard science you want to play, why not read that list of
moon-ranging experiment papers
that someone took the trouble to post, and explain in detail why their
calculations are so many
orders of magnitude out.

You'll be taken seriously then.

SR


tomcat; The only reason we aren't in Outer Space already is that the
U.S. is afraid of ET. We certainly have all the necessary equipment
to get up there in a couple of years with a crash program.
tomcat,
I believe the first reason is a rather nasty premature death (from the
inside out) by way of radiation, especially if they're going anywhere
near our physically dark and DNA lethal moon. The second reason is
that they don't have a tenth of what your mindset is worth to work
with. A third reason is that having to launch our stuff on a stick
isn't very efficient, nor all that reliable, and it's certainly not
been cheap.

Of the easiest and most payload efficient placement for having created
a station-keeping science platform, as being that of LL-1, hasn't
materialized because of that rather nasty gamma and hard-X-ray moon
that's always nearby. Besides a few physiological complications, it'll
take more than a few tonnes/m2 worth of shielding for insuring the
safety of any such crew that's spending any amount of time within that
essentially zero-gravity nullification zone. Obviously without our
having the new and composite improved Saturn V we haven't a cost
effective nor tonnage effective alternative for getting such horrific
mass into the LL-1 zone.

You recently had this little tidbit to say about out moon:
: While there appears to be uranium on the Moon, uranium doesn't really

: throw off that much in radiation unless it has reached critical mass.

: Is that the case with the Moon?
Mike Combs; Not typically, although when Nuclear Waste Disposal Area 2
went critical it was... interesting.
I then contributed the following:
That's certainly terrific status quo feedback. However, it seems as
though our extremely salty moon that was once upon a time coated in a
protective thick layer of salty ice has actually remained as somewhat
like a solid form of a Van Allen belt, having been collecting solar and
cosmic debris plus a little of just about everything that's good as
well as nasty that you and I can think of. That's why in places the
fluffy moon-dust that can't hardly support 0.5 g/cm2 is tens of meters
deep and absolutely chuck full of the worse possible radioactive debris
imaginable.

That's also why the gamma spectrum image of our naked moon looks so
downright nasty as all get-out, and this only gets much worse off upon
the solar illuminated side which adds another extra secondary/recoil
worth of hard-X-rays as representing serious insult to injury. By day
I believe we're talking minutes before DNA termination, that which no
amount of banked bone marrow will salvage. Perhaps by earthshine we're
talking hours to perhaps at best a day or so before an extra good
moonsuit occupant reaches their 100+ Rad of TBI dosage, by which
his/her banked bone marrow should save their day.
-

This is exactly why having the fully moon tethered LSE-CM/ISS and of
their taking advantage of such folks being extremely well shielded by
the 50t/m2 abode within the massive CM/ISS, and for otherwise keeping
58,000 km away from that nasty sucker, is so gosh darn bloody and DNA
butt saving important.

Because I'm such a good sport; Lets place their "Outer Space
Intelligence Center" within a portion of the 1e9 m3 abode that's
shielded by 50t/m2, as smack within the efficient tethered
station-keeping orbit of LL-1.
-
Brad Guth