On Jul 11, 1:29 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"jj" stop.right.there.net wrote in message

...: BradGuth wrote:

:
: A moon camera needs one heck of a UVa cut-off filter.
:
: They used regular Zeiss lenses which, like almost all lenses, do not
: transmit UV efficiently. To accomodate UV photography with film, one
: needs a special lens, usually with Quartz in the formula... and a UV
: sensitive film! They had neither.
:
: However, filters would be no problem. Look at the material of the face
: shields.
:
: It also needs shielding from local gamma and hard-Xrays.
:
: Not much at all was needed. First, the level of X-Rays is quite low.
: Gamma rays are not frequent enough for the time they were there to
: accumulate to a significant level.

No, no, LOCAL gamma rays.Guththe Super Prospector knows
how to find radioactive material right there in the Gruyère holes.
He learnt it from Johannes Wilhelm Geiger (1882 - 1945) but the old boy
was 24 years dead in 1969. He spent the period 1906-12 in Manchester,
England, working with Ernest Rutherford on radioactivity.

: The highly electrostatic environment of that
: physically dark and dusty anticathode moon is simply asking too much
: of most any camera, or much less that of human DNA.
:
: Once on the moon, they are the charge. No problem.
:
: So much for your uninformed imagination.

Naked matter of most any kind that's outside of our badly failing
magnetosphere is anticathode worthy. Sorry about that. And, that
naked moon of ours is also representing the best ever cosmic morgue in
town. Terribly sorry about that too.

Solar and Cosmic radiation at Venus L2(VL2), similar to Earth L2
except less cosmic dosage.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...7306cb2a78dcd8
Geoffrey A. Landis had a few kind words to share, although never any
specific numbers of what to expect at Venus L2 or even outside of
Earth's protective magnetosphere, such as residing at our moon's L1,
Earth's L1 or even that of Earth's L2. It's as though such science
pertaining to human space travel simply doesn't exist, other than in
various encrypted formats of any number of hocus-pocus conditional
physics, few of which seem to agree with one another.

SOHO Dosage
31 nifty pages of soft data on space radiation; meaning little if any
hard rad/rem data that pertains to human DNA that's having to reside
external to our magnetosphere.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/academ....space_env.pdf

Earth L2 Dosage
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/docu...-radiation.pdf
Similar to the above "JWST-RPT-radiation" report, an official Raytheon/
TRW Space Data Report offered us a GSO satellite internal system
dosage pegged as 2e3 Sv/year while fully shielded by 5/16" aluminum (2
g/cm2), thus residing outside of our protective magnetosphere's Van
Allen belts as fully in the buff is likely capable of being similar to
that realm of dosage analogy, of there being at times 2e5 rem/year or
548 rem/day of local Xrays, Gamma and direct cosmic exposure that
you'll need sufficient spacecraft or habitat shielding in order to
long-term survive without incorporating a backup plan B of banked bone
marrow, especially on behalf of attinuating and/or somehow diverting
the moon's anticathode worth of hard Xrays and Gamma that's rather
unavoidable if your butt of frail DNA is situated within the moon's L1
for any extended period of time.

Fortunately for POOF City that's residing at the cool halo orbital
location or station-keeping realm of Venus L2(VL2) isn't nearly as
cosmic hot and nasty, whereas Venus and of its robust atmosphere
itself blocking and/or diverting the vast bulk of whatever nasty halo
CMEs our sun has to offer, as well as there being no such nearby moon
of secondary/recoil Xrays and Gamma to fret about.

Therefore, VL2 is not only a cool satellite environment in a solar IR
forced thermal sense of the word, but it's also offering a relatively
cool amount of humanly lethal radiation to deal with, as possibly
similar to or perhaps not much greater than what ISS/ESS has to
contend with. The primary habitat POOFs with their added shielding of
ice cold beer or whatever else you'd like to consume should manage to
protect our frail DNA rather nicely, as safely station-keeping us
within the VL2 halo orbit, that which could also host a new and
greatly improved set of ACE/SOHO/TRACE science instruments in addition
to whatever's intended for scoping out and/or probing Venus.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 11:57 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
A moon camera needs one heck of a UVa cut-off filter.

They used regular Zeiss lenses which, like almost all lenses, do not
transmit UV efficiently. To accomodate UV photography with film, one
needs a special lens, usually with Quartz in the formula... and a UV
sensitive film! They had neither.

However, filters would be no problem. Look at the material of the face
shields.

It also needs shielding from local gamma and hard-Xrays.

Not much at all was needed. First, the level of X-Rays is quite low.
Gamma rays are not frequent enough for the time they were there to
accumulate to a significant level.

The highly electrostatic environment of that
physically dark and dusty anticathode moon is simply asking too much
of most any camera, or much less that of human DNA.

Once on the moon, they are the charge. No problem.

So much for your uninformed imagination.

Is that the very best Zion rusemaster of naysayism that you folks can
muster? How pathetic.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 11:29 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
For a good chuckle, go hehttp://moon.google.com/
Then push the slide all the way to maximum "+"

I laughed out loud!

Was that a jj Yiddish laugh, all because you and others of your
infomercial spewing swarm like kind have known that our NASA/Apollo
thing was all about nothing but another damn faith-based lie?

Besides your kind having perpetrated that nifty cold-war, what else
have you laughing Yids contributed as to your long and growing list of
crimes against humanity?

GOOGLE/NOVA's moon image is nothing but a freaking joke, as I can make
KECK along with mot any good blue or green laser pull out nearly one
meter per pixel under earthshine illumination.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 9:58 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:11:52 GMT
Yq6li.8454$Xa3.1522@attbi_s22:





The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether any NASA pic
pointed to a bright enough star (or to Venus, Brad's main
point of contention) -- and NASA took a *lot* of pictures.

There are a number of factors in proper picture taking,
especially of stars, but the brief answer is that various
photographs require hours to expose in order to show the
stars and the trees framing them properly, here on Earth,
during a dark, moonless night well away from city lighting.
However, a snapshot of a sunny beach day could be done
within a few thousandths of a second (any longer and the
film gets overexposed).

You see live images from the international Space Station
and space shuttles during the dark cycles--how come you are
not calling those faked? Do you see stars?

Well, after saying this, I did find a pic of Venus and theMoon
together, taken from an Earth telescope. Turns out there's
a fair number, and this one illustrates in miniature one of the
issues regarding exposures:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070523.html

The crescent in themoonblooms nicely, and even Venus blooms a bit
(there is a bit of a whitish area around Venus, with the camera's
diffraction spikes poking through it).

Now imagine landing on theMoon; if one takes a snapshot,
in order to avoid blooming out the entire picture of the
lunar surface while standing thereon, Venus would probably
have to vanish -- assuming it was in the field of view at
all to begin with.

(And this is assuming Venus has the same brightness as it did on
2007-05-23. Venus' brightness varies considerably.)







Since on theMoonthe stars are visible even when the Sun
is shining (if one isn't overcome by glare; presumably
one could step into the shadow of something, say the LEM,
if need be), one might take a photograph of the stars
while the Sun is shining -- but if one gets sunlight,
either directly (as poor Bean discovered) or indirectly,
if the camera doesn't want to risk overexposure of the
film and/or video sensor from the sunlight, the stars
are too faint to see, and if one wants to see stars,
any reflected sunlight will either burn out the camera or
overexpose the picture in those areas.

I doubt Venus is much better off, though it at least
shows a perceptible disk through binoculars. Pointed at
the Sun, those same binocs would probably burn out one's
retina, were one to look at the Sun through said binocs.
(This is especially important during a partial eclipse;
fortunately most binocs and telescopes can also project
the Sun's image onto a white surface.)

SOHO shows a mildly interesting phenomenon when staring
at a comet; the comet "blooms" in the sensors, leading to
odd-looking streaks.

SOHO images you refer to, block the solar disk so the sensors can
remain sensitive to much fainter gas of the corona, which is
sensitive enough to show sun grazing comets, planets and bright
stars.

It's bad enough with SOHO's blooming of comets and Mercury
-- the solar disc would probably destroy its sensors. :-)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u 0) ... }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You actually don't know what you're talking about. Call Kodak and get
the whole truth, or simply learn something honest about taking
pictures, such as from within an open pit coal mine, and be sure
having lots of high intensity UV lamps illuminating everything.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 10, 6:18 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?

Yes. Do you?

Obviously you folks don't, as those NASA/Apollo red, white and blue
flags will prove each and every time.

You also don't know what a secondary/recoil photon is, as in a near-
blue cast or pronounced tint of such a nifty color saturation, as
unavoidably created from a fairly robust spectrum worth of raw UVa.

Sorry about all that, and more to come.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 11, 11:29 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
For a good chuckle, go hehttp://moon.google.com/
Then push the slide all the way to maximum "+"

I laughed out loud!

Was that a jj Yiddish laugh, all because you and others of your
infomercial spewing swarm like kind have known that our NASA/Apollo
thing was all about nothing but another damn faith-based lie?
[... snip pathetic stuff ...]

You are going to become a ward of the state. You are that screwed up.

BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:18 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?
Yes. Do you?

Obviously you folks don't, as those NASA/Apollo red, white and blue
flags will prove each and every time.

You also don't know what a secondary/recoil photon is, as in a near-
blue cast or pronounced tint of such a nifty color saturation, as
unavoidably created from a fairly robust spectrum worth of raw UVa.

The Zeiss lenses were filtered. It's a no-brainier, but of course you
have less than no brain, so how could you understand.

And BTW, the focal plane was highly modified to place the fudiciary
marks, and they could accommodate a color (filter) in the same glass.

"jj" stop.right.there.net skrev i en meddelelse
...
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:18 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?
Yes. Do you?

Obviously you folks don't, as those NASA/Apollo red, white and blue
flags will prove each and every time.

You also don't know what a secondary/recoil photon is, as in a near-
blue cast or pronounced tint of such a nifty color saturation, as
unavoidably created from a fairly robust spectrum worth of raw UVa.

The Zeiss lenses were filtered. It's a no-brainier, but of course you have
less than no brain, so how could you understand.

And BTW, the focal plane was highly modified to place the fudiciary marks,
and they could accommodate a color (filter) in the same glass.

Sorry to say, but it is waste of time trying to explain that to conspiration
terrorists (pun intended)

John Christiansen

On Jul 13, 8:34 pm, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:18 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?
Yes. Do you?

Obviously you folks don't, as those NASA/Apollo red, white and blue
flags will prove each and every time.

You also don't know what a secondary/recoil photon is, as in a near-
blue cast or pronounced tint of such a nifty color saturation, as
unavoidably created from a fairly robust spectrum worth of raw UVa.

The Zeiss lenses were filtered. It's a no-brainier, but of course you
have less than no brain, so how could you understand.

And BTW, the focal plane was highly modified to place the fudiciary
marks, and they could accommodate a color (filter) in the same glass.

But lo and behold they did not spectrum filter via coatings upon that
clear plate of "fudiciary marks".

I'm terribly sorry to say those nifty Zeiss optics were not otherwise
custom spectrum band-pass filtered with other than standard though
quality coatings, but they were outfitted with an extra polarised
element which should have made their local terrain record as somewhat
50% darker, rather than looking so guano island albedo like. Besides,
there's still no technical or other supervised access to any portion
of the actual film to digital scan, is there.

I see that "Caltech, JPL, Northrop Grumman to Celebrate 50 Years of
Space Exploration" have been into their usual talent of excluding the
contributions of Van Allen, as simply having been a darn good ruse and
obviously a sufficient team player, that for the most part was able
(with a little help from those pesky MIB) to keeping his mouth shut.
Most likely they were actually glad to get rid of him and of his crazy
old fart ideas of promoting rad-hard robotic explorations instead of
human adventures along with having to protect our frail DNA that
simply wouldn't survive so much as any 'for real' moon mission without
imposing significant DNA consequences to the point of no return
because, especially of way back then there wasn't banked bone marrow
as an option.

The likes of our naked and thus unavoidably anticathode moon is simply
offering a much worse off environment in terms of its double IR/FIR
roasting plus secondary/recoil worth of gamma and hard-Xrays than any
given nasty part or zone within those pesky Van Allen belt badlands
that'll potentially yield 548 rads/day (given that's an average GSO
dosage while fully shielded on all sides by 5/16" aluminum).

Otherwise, once situated upon that physically dark, absolutely dry as
a bone and rather deeply dusty (least compacted), highly electrostatic
charged (possibly to teravolts) and otherwise simply unavoidably
reactive and a darn good cosmic morgue of a somewhat salty moon of
ours, whereas them stars are nearly twice as bright to the human eye,
and many of them stars being 3 to 4 times as bright to the unfiltered
Kodak eye, and that's not even including the Sirius star system.
Venus of course was simply way better than twice or nearly three times
as bright to the unfiltered Kodak eye, and that's because of those
highly reflective acidic clouds and outer layer of O2 having to deal
with more than 4 kw worth of a peak solar spectrum, having those
unavoidable color saturations of violet and near-UV that's a good part
of the raw solar spectrum whenever the camera location is without such
a nicely polluted terrestrial atmosphere of h2o and various other
photon reactive elements that's rather good at filtering out or
moderating such before ever reaching the terrestrial camera lens and
of that Kodak film that's otherwise more than humanly sensitive to
recording such raw spectrums of light.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 14, 2:03 am, "John Christiansen"
wrote:
"jj" stop.right.there.net skrev i en . ..





BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:18 am, jj stop.right.there.net wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
You think anyone here actually knows what photographic color
saturation is?
Yes. Do you?

Obviously you folks don't, as those NASA/Apollo red, white and blue
flags will prove each and every time.

You also don't know what a secondary/recoil photon is, as in a near-
blue cast or pronounced tint of such a nifty color saturation, as
unavoidably created from a fairly robust spectrum worth of raw UVa.

The Zeiss lenses were filtered. It's a no-brainier, but of course you have
less than no brain, so how could you understand.

And BTW, the focal plane was highly modified to place the fudiciary marks,
and they could accommodate a color (filter) in the same glass.

Sorry to say, but it is waste of time trying to explain that to conspiration
terrorists (pun intended)

John Christiansen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Instead of offering actual physics or that of the best available
science, is that your best Yiddish speak? "(pun intended)"
-
Brad Guth