"Brad Guth" <ieis-brad@juno.com> wrote in message
news:9f50a7c5.0311081331.749e6b1b@posting.google.com...

"Sean Massey" <smassey@mariancollege.edu> wrote in message

news:<bnsu50$159ae1$1@ID-206156.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Nah...

You don't want to confuse people with facts.

Here's a little typical feedback of supposed facts from: Jay Windley
(webmaster@clavius.org)
"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."

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

Fortunately, I never specified upon any specific "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 supernova 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, and
of the secondary radiation given off by all that infamous clumping
lunar dirt should become a fairly darn good indicator.

The assertions or premise offered by Jay Windley, that of 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 not so far if that's of any fully solar illuminated
environment while wearing a moon suit because, we're not talking about
avoiding a 270 nm UV sun burn.

Sorry about all my reverse engineering logic, or lack thereof. I was
simply trying to establish upon the amount of solar radiation that
becomes hard X-Ray class.

"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 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 is somewhat like getting a grasp upon the applied energy (thrust)
involved in accelerating something the size and mass of the moon.

As feedback provided from: Ami Silberman (silber@mitre.org)

"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 you've 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

Gents....   Unless you think that there's a whole lot of
really , really stupid people building big stuff the goes
way high or that the whole man to the moon and several
space stations and all the data received by all the craft
buzzing about in our solar neighborhood is Hollywood,

Ya haven't got a leg to stand on.......

First you should reread the gents reply to you a tad closer...

[Jay Windley
(webmaster@clavius.org)
"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."]

What he said is valid based on best data ( check nasa.gov) the
high energy particles for our rather limp dick sun are not of an
energy state as High energy particle/waves of Cosmic origin
(hence the name Cosmic Rays)

Second we have had orbital humans that, while are being exposed
to higher rad levels there's no statistical problems seen.  Much
bigger problem is calcium loss.

We've sent a bunch of craft about and measured all the rad
levels at lots of spots, way out there.  And you think that all
the guys that are training to fly, All the guys building hardware
to fly, All the really, really smart guys that figure out the
software,hardware,mathematical models would be all up for
a mars , moon, or where ever they can get money to go to,
if they knew they would cook like popcorn in the microwave.....

The only problem we have with our space program is
a target specific goal....   The program is now driven by
experimental project with no specific target.  So we spend
millions studying and studying.  Mans next step is Mars...
Its where we must go....  We have too...   If we don't we are
a doomed species....  We will flicker out as the dinosaurs....
For humans to survive in the long term they must get off
this ball because as has happened many times before it will
be Plunked... at some time in the future and there's not a damn
thing we can do about it unless we get off this ball....

If we set the goal of Mars and set a date certain we can go
back the Apollo style of mission where the goal drives
which projects run and which do not.....  If we would have
stayed the course then we would already have a camp on Mars.
We've studied weightless effects on people to death and its
not good so instead of studying it for another 20 years , spin
the damn thang and pufff a reasonable facsimile of gravity....
A Two Compartment connected by a cable and ridged extendable
bridge around a center module with all the go juice and
 a aero brake landing unit would not be all that tough
to fly in 10 to 15 year time frame.  Have a return craft already
on the surface fully refueled and a couple of self-contained
habitat modules dropped a year or two before.

You hop in your return craft and head up to the rig you left in orbit
and mate the fueled return module and head home..  Spinning
away till you got close and you get met by a return crew that
meets you and transfers the crew and samples to a return
craft...   That's all doable in 10 to 15 years with today's existing
technology....  Hell most of the guys using this newsgroup
have better CPU's than the shuttle......

And no...  they will not glow in the dark....


Paul R. Mays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Some where within the Quantum State
Http://Paul.Mays.Com/story.html
http://paul.mays.com/mayday.html

"Science is facts. Just as houses are made of stones, so is
science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house
and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."
                                         - Jules Henri Poincare (1854~1912)