Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V15_4/V15NO400.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 34KB

Date: Mon,  9 Nov 92 05:03:30
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #400
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Mon,  9 Nov 92       Volume 15 : Issue 400

Today's Topics:
                             clarke's law
                         GPS Satellite Info?
                           Hubble's mirror
                 Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat.
                             Metric again
                        NASA Coverup (7 msgs)

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 00:42:31 GMT
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: clarke's law
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion

> > > Someone recently posted Clarke's law.  The one about
> > > if a senior scientist says possible ...
> > Funny, the one I learned as "Clarke's Law" is:
> > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> Clarke is allowed to have many laws. Both of these are known as
> "Clarke's Law."

No, these are Clarke's First Law (which *was* Clarke's Law when it
was the only one), and Clarke's Third Law.  Incidentally, in his
recent book "How the World Was One", he refers to a case where the
First Law bit *him*.

Here's an old article of mine which made it into the FAQ list for the
newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written:


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarke's Law, later Clarke's First Law, can be found in the essay
"Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in the collection
"Profiles of the Future", 1962, revised 1973, Harper & Row, paperback
by Popular Library, ISBN 0-445-04061-0.  It reads:

# [1]        When a distinguished but elderly scientist
#        states that something is possible, he is almost
#        certainly right.  When he states that something
#        is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Note that the adverbs in the two sentences are different.  Clarke continues:

#    Perhaps the adjective "elderly" requires definition.  In physics,
#    mathematics, and astronautics it means over thirty; in the other
#    disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties.
#    There are, of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher
#    just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for
#    nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out
#    of the laboratory!

Isaac Asimov added a further comment with Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's
Law, which he expounded in an essay logically titled "Asimov's Corollary".
This appeared in the February 1977 issue of F&SF, and can be found in the
collection "Quasar, Quasar, Burning Bright", 1978, Doubleday; no ISBN on
my copy.  Asimov's Corollary reads:

% [1AC]        When, however, the lay public rallies round an
%        idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly
%        scientists and supports that idea with great fervor
%        and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly
%        scientists are then, after all, probably right.


So much for Clarke's First Law.  A few pages later on, in the final
paragraph of the same essay, Clarke writes:

# [2]        But the only way of discovering the limits of the
#        possible is to venture a little way past them into
#        the impossible.

To this he attaches a footnote:

#    The French edition of [presumably, the first edition of] this
#    book rather surprised me by calling this Clarke's Second Law.
#    (See page [number] for the First, which is now rather well-
#    known.)  I accept the label, and have also formulated a Third:
#
# [3]        Any sufficiently advanced technology is
#        indistinguishable from magic.
#
#    As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly
#    decided to stop there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The original poster asked for email, not posted answers, and I am
emailing this article to him also.
--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]
    We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity;
    but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice.
    -- a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"

This article is in the public domain.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 22:28:46 GMT
From: "John S. Novak III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GPS Satellite Info?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Hi.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could point me to a
recent list (ideally, a completely up to date list) of which GPS
satellites have been launched, and which satellites are still in
operation.

The most recent list I've found on my own initiative is dated
from 1986.

Email or post, I'll see it either way.

Thanks,
--
"What did I tell you last semester...  When you think you're rightm stand your
 ground, and slap him in the head until he listens."
          -Steve Gutschlag to Carrie Weissberg. 01-28-92
 John S. Novak, III        [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 23:25:47 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Hubble's mirror
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stick,CommoSigop) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerard M. Foley) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Donald H. Locker) writes:
>
>>> Now that I know a little about mirror-making, I'd like to hear again
>>> how the Hubble mirror contractor messed up the figure of the main
>>> mirror.  I understand it has spherical aberration, but wonder how
>>> [Rockwell?] managed to do that.
>>>
>>It wasn't Rockwell (I forget axactly who it was, but it was an
>>otherwise reputable New England outfit) and put briefly, they
>>fouled up the test, performing it incorrectly, and never
>>checked by any independent method.
>
>   According to Dr. Steve Maran, who works on the HST project at the
>Goddard Flight Center, and who was recently a guest lecturer at my college,
>none of the above is true.  The company that ground the mirror did it
>exactly to the specs they were given.
>
>   The specs were wrong.


According to the NASA investigation of the Hubble mirror problem, there
was nothing wrong with the specs. The backup mirror built to the same
specs by Kodak is *perfect*. The problem was that Perkin-Elmer bollixed
up the testing of the figure of the mirror and ignored the results of
a Foucault test that showed the mirror to have spherical abberations
because their primary test was supposed to give more accurate results.
Unfortunately, they installed a fixture backwards when making the
primary measurements and got the *wrong* result.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 22:35:57 GMT
From: Steinn Sigurdsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Cameron Newham) writes:


   Well, I've just had a good laugh after reading a half page article on the
   possible Swift-Tuttle impact in our Sunday paper.

   Although the article contains the usual misinformation, speculation and

 ...

   In it he is quoted as saying "A chance of one in 400 is not small when you
   are talking about the extinction of the human race."

   1 in 400?  Where did this figure come from?  I thought it was 1 in 10000, and
   that at a back-of-the-envelope calculation.  Has the knowledge about Swift-
   Tuttle's non-gravitational forces suddenly taken a gigantic leap forward?
   Hardly.

The 1:400 seems to be a consequence of someone noting that if P/S-T
crosses the ecliptic sometime on August 14th 2126 then there is still
a 1:400 chance it will miss assuming a uniform error. ie it takes it
about 1/400 of a day to cross an Earth diameter.

 ..

   The article goes on to say that the "International Astronomical Union then
   warned its member nations that Swift-Tuttle would cross earth's path in
   August 2126."

   News to me!  Anyone care to comment?

Well, it does have a significant probability of crossing the ecliptic
either in late July or early August, and this was stated in an IAUC...

At this point it would perhaps be best to hold off until a few months
after perihelion, about this time next year we will have a much better
orbit and will know with some degree of confidence how close it will
come next time around.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict            *
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 22:22:19 GMT
From: Steve Linton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metric again
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
|> > John Roberts writes:
|> >
|> > By the way, I think you'll be much happier in the long run if you do your
|> > calculations in SI (metric) units. I often do simple calculations in
|> > standard
|> > units, but the tough problems are much more easily handled using SI.
|>
|>
|>         I am delighted to find that NASA seem finally to be moving toward
|> metric, not just in theory but in reality.  Ron Baalke's postings about
|> various spacecraft now use metric units as the primary system, with
|> traditional American units in brackets.  About a week ago I joined a public
|> tour through the Goddard Space Flight Center (just north of Washington DC).
|> Goddard has a backup Shuttle mission control center which can take over
|> Shuttle operations if the Houston center is down.  There was a Shuttle up at
|> the time, and data related to the mission were being displayed in real time
|> on a large display at the front of the control room (the tour saw the room
|> from behind a glass wall).  Shuttle altitute was listed in km, and velocity
|> was listed in km/sec.
|>         Does anyone know if NASA uses degrees C for reporting things like the

|> Shuttle cabin temperature and the temperature of experiments?

Of course they should use Kelvins (:-)).

My main beef about NASA metrication concerns precision. How often have you seen
"This tiny widget, only about 1 inch (2.54cm) across"? If the diameter is given
as "about 1 inch" the implied precision is about +-25%. As such, the proper
metric form is "two or three centimeters" or "a couple of centimeters". 2.54cm
implies a precision that just isn't there.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 22:19:46 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>   Let me here define "Neutral Point" :
>
>   The  neutral  point  is  that  point  in a lunar spacecraft's trajectory,
>   measured by the straight line distance from the moon's center  in  miles,
>   where the force of gravitational influence in the direction of the moon ,
>   measured  in  pounds of "pull" on the spacecraft,is equal to the force of
>   influence toward the direction of the earth, also measured in  pounds  of
>   "pull".
>
>   I believe that the direct quotation from the July 25,1969  Time  magazine
>   article would be helpful here:
>
>   "At  a  point 43,495 from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force [on the
>   spacecraft] equal to the gravity of the Earth , then some  200,000  miles
>   distant."
>
>   I would conclude from the inclusion of the distance remaining  to  go  to
>   the  moon (200,000 miles) that the author knew exactly which units he was
>   talking about .
>
>   I did a search for other sources which would help us analyse just what is
>   meant by " neutral point" , and where  it  might  be  located  along  the
>   flight path of the Apollo .
>
>   In "Project Apollo: Man to the Moon" by Thomas J. Alexander  (Harper  and
>   Row , 1964 ) ,the author states:
>
>   "At  a  point  some  40,000 miles from the Moon ,when the craft is poking
>   along at about 2000 mph, it crosses THE LINE  where  the  moon's  gravity
>   exceeds  that  of  the  earth . That's the second part of the trjectory."
>   (caps mine).
>
>   In  Buzz  Aldrin's  book, "Men From Earth" (1989)  , the author states on
>   page 231:
>
>   "After two full days into the mission we were 150,000  miles  from  earth
>   and   our  speed  was  less  than  3000  miles  an  hour.  The  moon  was
>   approximately 30 hours and 90,000  miles distant."
>
>   Here we have a "horse's mouth" space jockey's description of  his  ship's
>   situation well before reaching either of two postulated neutral points.
>
>    If  we  rule out the possibility that Apollo 11 was undergoing some kind
>   of  continuous  thrusting  which  would  keep  this  3000  mph   velocity
>   constant,we  are then left with the conclusion that the neutral point was
>   approximately 1/2 way between his position at  that  time  and  the  moon
>   which  was  90,000  miles  away.  Here again we arrive at a Neutral point
>   figure close to the 43,595 miles AS SPECIFIED BY TIME , VON BRAUN  ,  and
>   ALEXANDER.
>
>    I  repeat  again  this  is  data  from direct experimental evidence (the
>   actual moon flights) that  the  moon's  gravity  cannot  be  1/6  if  one
>   calculates the relative pulls of the earth and moon based on the proven
>   accurate  inverse square law . In pre - Apollo Astronomy , it is admitted
>   that the exact determination of the moon's mass , therefore the  position
>   of  the  neutral  point  could  not  be determined unless one was able to
>   observe the actual trajectories of lunar spacecraft.

Ah, you've fallen into a particularly common trap. You are taking
simplified "pop" science statements and treating them as if they
meant something else. This is the kind of thing that makes real
orbital mechanics grit their teeth in frustration when they read
them in the papers. All the statements you quote are true in a
limited context, but don't tell the story sufficiently for the
calculations you have attempted. References to speed and distance
in space are of very limited usefulness. You have to ask yourself,
"What component of the velocity vector are they referencing?", and
"Reference to what body is the measurement being made?"

Remember that to reach the Moon from low Earth orbit, we can't travel
in a "straight" line unless we have some magical engine that can thrust
continously. Instead, we do a burn in LEO that changes the shape of our
orbit from a low circular one to a highly eccentric ellipse with it's
low point at LEO and it's high point at Lunar orbit. The point on the
Lunar orbit where the transfer ellipse meets will be empty at firing
time because the Moon is a moving target. Three days later, when the
capsule reaches Lunar orbital height, the Moon will have moved about
it's orbit so that it will be there too. Thus the timing of the firing
is critical. A second burn is then done to transfer the probe from
an elliptical orbit around Earth to a nearly circular orbit around
the Moon, or in the case of Ranger, to a highly elliptical orbit
around the Moon with it's perilune at the surface.

So, since both bodies are in orbits with an intercecting point, you
must always ask when you see speeds quoted, "Speed relative to what?"
The probe is moving along an orbital ellipse with a velocity that
generates the exact amount of centripedal force to cancel the effect
of the Earth's gravity *at every point* in it's orbit barring the
influence of a third body. At any point in the transfer orbit, the
vector component of it's velocity *toward the Moon* is a function of
the geometry of the orbits and the timing along the orbit.

The *neutral point* referred to in this case is the point where the
gravitational attraction of the Moon *adds* just enough to the
centripedal force generated by the probe's motion *along it's orbit*
to warp that orbit toward a Lunar trajectory. Thus this point is much
further from the Moon than your simple "tug of war" analysis would
show because you've neglected the orbital motion of the bodies.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:21:56 GMT
From: Soh Kam Hung <soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

I been lied to by the damned physicists!  I thought gravity was more or
less constant close to the surface of the Earth but I've found proof to
the contrary.  The gravity at the top of a stair well must be much
higher than I thought: I can't jump a fraction of an inch after walking
up three flights of stairs!

Humour for the smiley impaired.

--
Soh Kam Hung, Network Management Research,     | [e-mail]
TRL, POB 249 Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia | [phone]

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 23:16:45 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>                    TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON
>
>   1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
>       orbit?
>
>     Scientists have generally offered three major theories to  account  for
>   the  moon  in  orbit around our planet. All three are in serious trouble.
>   Amazingly, the least likely theory prior to the Apollo  missions  emerges
>   as  the  "favorite"  theory.   Evidence  gathered  by  the Apollo program
>   indicate that the moon and  the  earth  differ  greatly  in  composition,
>   thereby degrading the two theories that prevailed prior to these flights.
>   The  first and most popular idea among these scientists was that the moon
>   had been born alongside the earth out of the same cloud of gas  and  dust
>   about  4.6  billion  years  ago. Another theory was that the moon was the
>   earth's "child", ripped out of the Pacific basin ,possibly.
>
>     However,evidence gathered by the Apollo  missions  indicates  that  the
>   moon  and  earth  differ  greatly in composition.  Scientists now tend to
>   lean toward the third theory -  that  the  moon  was  "captured"  by  the
>   Earth's  gravitational  field  and  locked into orbit ages ago. There are
>   incredibly   difficult   celestial   mechanics   involved   in   such   a
>   capture,however.  If  the moon just "happened" to wander into the earth's
>   vicinity ,Newton's  Laws  of  gravitation  would  almost  certainly  have
>   assured  an  acceleration  great enough to send it out into the depths of
>   space  again.   The  logically  consistent,  but  socially   unacceptable
>   alternative  to  this conclusion is that a steering or braking "manuever"
>   had been performed by some mechanism "aboard" the  moon.  NASA  Scientist
>   Dr.  Robin  Brett  sums  it up best: "It seems much easier to explain the
>   nonexistence of the moon than it's existence".

A capture theory requires the influence of a third body, or as you state,
artificially generated thrust. Both are extremely unlikely. Currently,
the most popular theory is that the Moon is a result of a collision with
the primordial Earth by a third body similar in mass to the present day
Mars. The result of the collision is the much smaller present day Earth
and the Moon. There is ample evidence throughout the solar system for such
collisions in the early solar system. The Lunar surface composition is
consistent with being formed from the primordial Earth's mantle.

>   2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
>     sun and moon a mere coincidence?
>
>    Yes. The fact that the moon subtends an angle of arc, as viewed from the
>   earth  ,  equal  to that of the sun ,is a " coincidence" which causes the
>   occasional solar eclipse spectacle . Only the Earth , alone  of  all  the
>   planets  in  the  solar  system , is known to harbor life and a satellite
>   with this peculiar quality . The theory that the moon was placed here  by
>   intelligent  being(s) as a sort of "planet marker " , is only a  theory .
>   As we all  know  ,  theories  are  not  necessarily  the  same  thing  as
>   "Science."

Indeed, Occam's Razor says coincidence is sufficient explanation without
calling on putative "aliens." When looking at any sufficiently large number
of random actions, remarkable coincidences can always be found. When you
roll the dice, *some* number has to come up. We find the number that came
up remarkable only because we are here to observe it. This is the anthropic
principle at work.

>    3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?
>
>     99 percent of moon rocks brought back turned out upon  analysis  to  be
>   older than 90 percent of the oldest rocks that can be found on earth . If
>   we  assume  that the moon came from a different area of the solar system,
>   where the component material might have been different  ,this  assumption
>   would  still  not  account  for  the  disparity in the average age of the
>   matter composing the two bodies.

It's not a different age of "matter", it's a difference in the average age
of *surface* rocks. Since the Moon is a smaller body and cooled earlier,
it has no ongoing subduction processes to bury old rock, and since it has
no sensible atmosphere, there are no weathering processes going on. Thus
it's obvious why early rocks are still available on it's surface long after
such rocks have weathered or been subducted on Earth.

>     The first rock picked up by Neil Armstrong after landing on the Sea  of
>     Tranquility  turned  out  to be more than 3.6 billion years old . Other
>     rocks turned out to be even older; 4.3 , 4.5 ,4.6 and one alleged to be
>     5.3 billion years old. The oldest rocks found on earth  are  about  3.7
>     billion  years  old.  Based  on  such  evidence  ,some  scientists have
>     concluded that the moon was formed among the stars long before our  sun
>     was born.

Obviously not geologists with any understanding of the weathering and
subduction processes on Earth.

>  4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
>     of the moon?
>
>    The dark areas on the moon are known as "maria" ,some of which form  the
>   familiar  "man  in  the  moon". Maria are significantly absent on the far
>   side of the moon. The ones on the near side area consist mainly of  lunar
>   soil and smaller rocks.  Astronauts found it extremely difficult to drill
>   into  the  surface  of  these dark, plain - like areas. Soil samples weer
>   loaded with rare metals and elements like titanium,  zirconium,  yttruim,
>   and  berylium. How the moon could have been formed by some random process
>   with  such  high  concentrations  of  rare  elements   has   never   been
>   satisfactorily explained.

This is simply wrong. The surface minerals found on the Moon are consistent
with elemental concentrations in the Earth's upper mantle, *if* you subtract
the heavy elements in the Earth's mantle present due to subduction mixing.
Titanium is not rare in the Earth's mantle. The other elements mentioned
are rare in both bodies. What's remarkably missing from the Moon rocks is
*iron*. Iron is a highly abundant element in the cores of rocky bodies
formed by accretion. It's absence from the Lunar material is significant
since it shows that the Lunar material must have come from a *differentiated*
body such as the primordial Earth.

>  5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?
>
>    Samples  brought  back to earth by both Soviet and American Space Probes
>   contain particles of pure iron. The  Soviets  announced  that  pure  iron
>   particles  brought back by the remote controlled lunar probe Zond 20 have
>   not oxidized even after several years on earth. Pure iron particles  that
>   do  not  rust  are  unheard  of in the strange world of science, although
>   there is a solid pillar of iron of unknown age  near  New  Delhi  ,India,
>   that has never rusted ,and no one knows why .

Simply wrong. A lie from _Chariots of the Gods_.

>  6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?
>
>    When  the  Apollo  15  astronauts  used  thermal  equipment  to  measure
>   temperatures  below the surface , they got unusually high readings, which
>   indicated high subsurface temperatures near the  Apennine  mountains.  It
>   was  speculated  that  ,  since  the  presumed  density of the moon would
>   preclude the possibility of lava flows, magma and the like (volcanism has
>   never been observed  on  the  moon)  that  the  high  readings  could  be
>   explained   by  highly  radioactive  elements  just  under  the  surface.
>   Actually, the amount of radioactive materials on the SURFACE of the  moon
>   is  "embarrassingly  high"  .   Where  did  all  of this hot ,radioactive
>   material ( uranium and thorium ) come from ? And  if  it  came  from  the
>   interior  of  the  moon  (very  unlikely)  ,how  did it get to the moon's
>   surface?

There are no "embarrassingly high" levels of uranium and thorium in the
Lunar samples. In fact the levels are "embarrassingly low" for any Lunar
formation theory except collision calving from a differentiated body.
Subsurface temperatures are unusually high only until you realize the
insulating properties of the lunar regolith and note the absence of water
and atmosphere to fill the vacuum voids in the material and carry heat
away by any process except radiation. Once you understand the thermodynamics
of the situation, it would be unusual if subsurface temperatures were *lower*
than those measured.

>  7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?
>
>     The few lunar excursions indicate that the moon is a  very  dry  world.
>   One  Lunar  expert  said that the moon was "a million times as dry as the
>   Gobi Desert" .  The early Apollo missions did not even find the slightest
>   trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts  were  stunned  when  a
>   cloud  of  water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on
>   the  moon's  surface.  NASA  officials  suggested  that  two  tiny tanks,
>   abandoned  on the moon by U.S. Astronauts, had somehow ruptured. But  the
>   contents of  these  tanks  could  not  have  produced  a  cloud  of  such
>   magnitude. The water vapor appears to have come from the moon's interior.
>   Mists, clouds and surface changes have been allegedly seen over the years
>   by  astronomers  .   For  instance  , six astronomers in the last century
>   claimed to have seen a mist which obscured the details on  the  floor  of
>   the  crater Plato. Clouds of any kind would be an extremely odd phenomena
>   on the moon, because of the supposed low gravity, which presumably  could
>   not  hold an atmosphere.  Water trapped beneath the surface, then venting
>   by some unknown process , is one possible explanation - but then what (or
>   WHO) is "letting off steam"?

Strange "clouds" have been observed on the Moon for hundreds of years, since
the availability of telescopes. It should be noted that the Moon has no
sensible atmosphere so the "clouds" are considerably different phenomina
than the clouds seen in Earth's *atmosphere*. Ten kilograms of sodium vapor
was released in Earth orbit and created a visible "cloud" over half of Earth
for a short time. The same kind of process in the vacuum of the Moon can allow
a small outgassing to generate a huge "cloud" that's visible from Earth. Even
after exposure to vacuum and high surface temperatures due to solar heating
for 5 billion years, it would be remarkable if *all* volatiles were missing
from the Moon. Small pockets, either in permanent shadow or insulated by Lunar
regolith should still exist on the Moon. Heat "creep" via conduction
through the poorly conducting Lunar soil should occasionally volatilize
a remaining pocket and cause a small outgassing. This is the same mechanism
that gives comets their tail.

>  8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?
>
>     Lunar  explorations  have  revealed  that  much of the lunar surface is
>   covered with a glassy glaze , which indicates that the moon's surface has
>   been scorched by an unknown source of intense heat .   Expert's  analysis
>   shows  that  this  did not result from massive meteorite impactings . One
>   explanation forwarded  was  that  an  intense  solar  flare,  of  awesome
>   proportions  ,  scorched  the moon some 30,000 years ago. Scientists have
>   remarked that the glaze is similar to the glaze created by atomic weapons
>   on earth soil.

If a solar flare sufficient to remelt Lunar soil occurred 30,000 years ago,
there would be no life on Earth. This is nonsense. The maria are the result
of basaltic flows formed during the initial cooling of the Moon. Since there
is neither weathering nor subduction to disturb it, the Lunar surface most
resembles a *fresh* volcanic flow on Earth. If you observe a fresh volcanic
flow, you'll find the characteristic "glassy" look to the rocks. The "front"
of the Moon is protected to some extent from heavy meteoric bombardment by
the orbital mechanics of the Earth-Luna system. Thus there are fewer impact
craters on this side of the Moon than on the "outside" side.

>  9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?
>
>     In 1968 ,tracking data of lunar orbiters first indicated  that  massive
>   concentrations  (mascons) existed under the surface of the circular lunar
>   maria.  NASA  even reported that the gravitational pull caused by themwas
>   so  pronounced  that  the  spacecraft  overhead   dipped   slightly   and
>   accellerated  when  flitting  by  the  lunar  plain  , thus revealing the
>   existence of these hidden structures,  whatever  they  are.  Calculations
>   show that they are enormous concentrations of dense heavy matter centered
>   like a bull's eye under the  lunar  maria.  NASA  has  never  offered  an
>   explanation of their existence.

Of course they have. *Every* rocky body in the solar system has mascons.
The Earth does, and Venus is presently being gravity mapped for mascons.
There are several processes that can cause mascons. The most common is
cooled magma chambers. Another is buried remains of large meteor strikes.
On bodies with active vulcanism, subduction has erased all traces of primeval
meteor strikes and magma chambers, replacing them with contemporary vulcanism.
But on Luna, the body has completely cooled from it's formation and these
features are frozen in time from it's creation. They are all the more striking
because of the lack of a differentiated core in the Moon.

Gary

------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 92 19:27:49 GMT
From: Dennis Wicks <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Laurence James Edwards) writes:
>
>by the way, this is all one long running joke, right?
>
>Larry Edwards
Nope, they are serious!  This is alt.conspiracy, after all!

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 08 Nov 92 12:04:00 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy

    I  rented  a  videotape  called "Man to the Moon" ,produced by CBS news.
   Timing Buzz Aldrin's leap from the 3 foot bottom rung of the Lunar Module
   ladder , I come up with about 1 second ,which would be consistent with  a
   lunar  gravity  of  1/6. Although he still to be holding on to the ladder
   throughout the leap , it seems that it is just to steady himself , not to
   slow the fall.


    On this basis then, I concede that the lunar gravity is 1/6 .
   ______________________________________________________________


    I  apologize  ,publicly  ,  over the net, to the general class of people
   known as "NASA Scientists" who I accused of concealing  the  truth  about
   the lunar gravity.

    I  thank  all  of  those  who  posted private responses via E-mail in an
   effort to explain / debate the conclusion that the Neutral  point  figure
   revealed a higher gravity.

    I  will  continue , however to point out alternative theories to account
   for various facts  of  nature.  Theories  are  not  science,  but  merely
   suggestions  of  possible  explanations  for  observed  phenomena  .   An
   alternate theory need only be logically and mathematically consistent  to
   be as viable as relativity , or any other theory.

    I  am  , at least,gratified to learn that Velikovsky's idea of planetary
   collisions , long scorned and ridiculed by the scientific community ,  is
   now the prevailing theory explaining the origin of the moon.

   More on this later.

   snarfy

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:43:06 GMT
From: "Blair P. Houghton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:
>I been lied to by the damned physicists!  I thought gravity was [...]

Gravity is a cologne.

                --Blair
                  "And it better not stink,
                   because I want some bad."

------------------------------

Date: 9 Nov 92 02:29:04 GMT
From: "Vaughan R. Pratt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NASA Coverup
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:
>>I been lied to by the damned physicists!  I thought gravity was [...]
>
>Gravity is a cologne.

And quantum gravity is a questiogne mark.
--
Vaughan Pratt

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 400
------------------------------