 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » LCROSS: What concentrations of water will... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| J0nathan... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 9, 6:24 pm, "J0nathan" <hereth... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:377a83c064]There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan
[/quote:377a83c064]
It always need-to-know, and apparently we never need to know squat.
It's apparently the very best our kosher and republican boys with all
the "right stuff" can muster. Now it's another NASA cover-thy-butt
time again, as they proceed to hype everything and continue to drill
us for job security.
It seems both LCROSS items quickly/instantly sank out of sight and
essentially vanished without showing us or those other spendy
instruments much if anything, and whatever amounts of electrostatic
charged moon dust quickly returned to cover everything up, showing
only minor amounts of vapor/dust plume as only visible from a
PhotoShop enhanced/processed image, because their original raw image
data still isn't being made available to the general public.
Seems they still can't even allow themselves to honestly share the
best available truths, as to how many tens of meters thick is that
crystal dry and extremely electrostatic charged lunar topsoil that’s
nearly dark as coal.
Is our Selene/moon actually that UV inert/unreactive and otherwise of
such a dull grayish terrain, that by rights should be on average
nearly dark as coal? (any number of amateur astronomers and multiple
other missions of lunar science oddly don't seem to think it’s so
inert or without UV reactive colors/hues)
In addition to that naked surface having been collecting solar and
various cosmic carbon dust, where exactly did all of those previous
gigatonnes of crater displaced basalt bedrock and considerable impact
generated dust go?
Did all those original meteors and asteroids that impacted our Selene/
moon simply vanish into less than thin air, as well as for all of
their secondary debris from all of those truly massive and
horrifically volumetric worthy craters just vanish off the face of our
mostly basalt and mineral saturated moon?
There have supposedly been multiple 14+ tonne Apollo impactors, and
yet there’s still not one close-up or otherwise revealing image of any
such newish crater produced by such horrific impacts. In fact, LRO
and it's inventory of spendy science and imaging technology has also
been somewhat of a science and eyecandy flop, as having shared at most
0.1% of what should have been easily obtained thus far, and not really
telling us anything new or even of better science interpretations
that’s worth the near billion dollars of our hard earned public loot.
What exactly are they (DARPA and NASA) still trying to hide from us?
Why don’t we ever get to review all 100% of our public funded science?
Where are the various terrestrial based astronomy images of these
supposedly horrific impacts and subsequent plumes that should be
nearly visible to the naked eye (NE = 20 km)
Don't tell me that our Hubble and a number of other orbiting
observatories are each broken again. Figures, doesn't it.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 9, 6:24 pm, "J0nathan" <hereth... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:ca05a6be1a]There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan
[/quote:ca05a6be1a]
There's h2o of perhaps 50 ppm in that basalt, and perhaps otherwise
lots more as a mineral brine deeper within.
14+ tonnes made only a 25 meter splat?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/124-Apollo-14-SIVB-Impact-Crater.html
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/ap14sivb_thumb.png
That impact site must have been nothing but a hundred plus meters
worth of extremely lose rock and otherwise looking dark as coal dust.
What's the bright white stuff? (sodium?)
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I don't think any scientist would agree to withhold data for the reason you
suggest, indeed any reason.
I've been quiet on all this as from past experience I doubted whether any
plume would be seen despite the hype to the contrary. Look at the history of
moon impacts, and you can see why, or indeed, you cannot see anything!
So, the world saw a measly flash and a small crater. One of the reporters
asked the very pertinent question, if there is a crater where did the
material all go?
Odds aware, I suspect that it was in fact quite a dense area, and the dust,
whether containing water or not, did not go very far. Unfortunately, the
absolute accuracy cannot be that great on such missions as I'd have aimed
for the edge of ghe shadow where it might, through conduction, have meant
that any volatiles from deeper were coming closer to the surface.
You need mobility because in the continuously dark areas, and one needs to
try to imagine how very very long they have been dark and cold, it could
well be that many other impacts have exhausted any water near the surface,
whereas, in slightly heated areas, the process of renewal, if the water is
deep could still be continuing.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J0nathan" <herethere at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sb2dnR5_S7vxf1LXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
[quote:1627373ff3]There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan
[/quote:1627373ff3] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well had you listened to the news conf, you would know that Hubble cannot
look long term at the moon in visible light, though its spectragraphs ought
to be interesting.
Brian carefully ignoring the paranoid tendencies of the original
poster..grin
--
Brian Gaff - briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"BradGuth" <bradguth at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3367820b-42bb-4dc8-b19c-888152752394 at (no spam) z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 9, 6:24 pm, "J0nathan" <hereth... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:b04c1cae0c]There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan
[/quote:b04c1cae0c]
It always need-to-know, and apparently we never need to know squat.
It's apparently the very best our kosher and republican boys with all
the "right stuff" can muster. Now it's another NASA cover-thy-butt
time again, as they proceed to hype everything and continue to drill
us for job security.
It seems both LCROSS items quickly/instantly sank out of sight and
essentially vanished without showing us or those other spendy
instruments much if anything, and whatever amounts of electrostatic
charged moon dust quickly returned to cover everything up, showing
only minor amounts of vapor/dust plume as only visible from a
PhotoShop enhanced/processed image, because their original raw image
data still isn't being made available to the general public.
Seems they still can't even allow themselves to honestly share the
best available truths, as to how many tens of meters thick is that
crystal dry and extremely electrostatic charged lunar topsoil that’s
nearly dark as coal.
Is our Selene/moon actually that UV inert/unreactive and otherwise of
such a dull grayish terrain, that by rights should be on average
nearly dark as coal? (any number of amateur astronomers and multiple
other missions of lunar science oddly don't seem to think it’s so
inert or without UV reactive colors/hues)
In addition to that naked surface having been collecting solar and
various cosmic carbon dust, where exactly did all of those previous
gigatonnes of crater displaced basalt bedrock and considerable impact
generated dust go?
Did all those original meteors and asteroids that impacted our Selene/
moon simply vanish into less than thin air, as well as for all of
their secondary debris from all of those truly massive and
horrifically volumetric worthy craters just vanish off the face of our
mostly basalt and mineral saturated moon?
There have supposedly been multiple 14+ tonne Apollo impactors, and
yet there’s still not one close-up or otherwise revealing image of any
such newish crater produced by such horrific impacts. In fact, LRO
and it's inventory of spendy science and imaging technology has also
been somewhat of a science and eyecandy flop, as having shared at most
0.1% of what should have been easily obtained thus far, and not really
telling us anything new or even of better science interpretations
that’s worth the near billion dollars of our hard earned public loot.
What exactly are they (DARPA and NASA) still trying to hide from us?
Why don’t we ever get to review all 100% of our public funded science?
Where are the various terrestrial based astronomy images of these
supposedly horrific impacts and subsequent plumes that should be
nearly visible to the naked eye (NE = 20 km)
Don't tell me that our Hubble and a number of other orbiting
observatories are each broken again. Figures, doesn't it.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 1:33 am, "Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[quote:93a044105f]Well had you listened to the news conf, you would know that Hubble cannot
look long term at the moon in visible light, though its spectragraphs ought
to be interesting.
Brian carefully ignoring the paranoid tendencies of the original
poster..grin
--
Brian Gaff - bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
[/quote:93a044105f]
Whats does 50<500 ppm moon water and perhaps 50000 ppm sodium do for
us?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 10, 1:28 am, "Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[quote:1e16d8ac65]I don't think any scientist would agree to withhold data for the reason you
suggest, indeed any reason.
I've been quiet on all this as from past experience I doubted whether any
plume would be seen despite the hype to the contrary. Look at the history of
moon impacts, and you can see why, or indeed, you cannot see anything!
So, the world saw a measly flash and a small crater. One of the reporters
asked the very pertinent question, if there is a crater where did the
material all go?
Odds aware, I suspect that it was in fact quite a dense area, and the dust,
whether containing water or not, did not go very far. Unfortunately, the
absolute accuracy cannot be that great on such missions as I'd have aimed
for the edge of ghe shadow where it might, through conduction, have meant
that any volatiles from deeper were coming closer to the surface.
You need mobility because in the continuously dark areas, and one needs to
try to imagine how very very long they have been dark and cold, it could
well be that many other impacts have exhausted any water near the surface,
whereas, in slightly heated areas, the process of renewal, if the water is
deep could still be continuing.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"J0nathan" <hereth... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sb2dnR5_S7vxf1LXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
There are two ways of looking at this mission imo.
(a) A mission dedicated to determining ....if....there's enough
water on the Moon to supply a future colony.
OR
(b) A mission dedicated to manufacturing an excuse to
return men to the Moon.
If (a) there should be some agreed upon threshold where the
concentrations of water are, or are not, enough to consider
useful for colonies.
If (b) any amount of water at all is enough. Even the slightest trace.
The threshold, or lack thereof, should be made public BEFORE
the impact and data.
Anyone know what the 'numbers' are?
Jonathan
[/quote:1e16d8ac65]
Deep moon water, sodium and nitrogen gives us what exactly?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 16, 8:26 pm, BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 1:33 am, "Brian Gaff" <bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Well had you listened to the news conf, you would know that Hubble cannot
look long term at the moon in visible light, though its spectragraphs ought
to be interesting.
Brian carefully ignoring the paranoid tendencies of the original
poster..grin
--
Brian Gaff - bria... at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
What does 50<500 ppm moon water and perhaps 50000 ppm sodium do for
us?
~ BG
[/quote]
Isn't such a terrific cache of sodium worth anything, such as in place
of aluminum rocket fuel?
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:49 pm
|
|