July 26, 2015 — Don Ecker, Curt Collins and Goggs Mackay

[dmanister]

Oh great. When we've made this planet unlivable we can do the same for others.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Oh great. When we've made this planet unlivable we can do the same for others.

EARTH FIRST: We'll ruin the other planets later.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Well they be telling us they found ETs before those states get there.

 

[DissectionStalker]

Oh great. When we've made this planet unlivable we can do the same for others.

Believe me, after 911 there is NO DOUBT in my mind some Master Race PTB will allow some worldwide disaster to take-out most of Humanity. As long as they have an escape plan underground, then the Master Race will not stop it. I think the writing is already on the wall after 911, though I certainly do think foreign terrorists committed those acts. But many in government knew how to prevent it from happening easily, and we can easily understand that is was used as an excuse for other agendas in its aftermath.

My guess is it will happen by some bioweapons program, because a cure can allow the chosen ones to survive. IF sea levels start to rise to dangerous levels or there are some terrible climate changes destroying the food supply, then a popular revolution might take hold. An uprising of the people, and the PTB are finally exposed. But billions of people will still be wiped-out.

 

[Brians238]

The reason we did not go back to the moon is pretty straightforward--it's not that interesting. When we went there, we found rocks that contained isotopes identical to those found in earth rocks. The only scientific model that can explain that well is that the moon was once part of the earth. The idea of spending billions of dollars to go to what was once part of the earth makes little sense--we can study basalt here. Most of the science needed to date the solar system's formation was accomplished in the 6 Apollo landings, very little new knowledge came from the later landings in the series. As to setting up bases and manufacturing on the moon, it makes no sense. The moon is essentially a vacuum with gravity. Why waste money on the massive amount of fuel needed to move a payload out of the gravitational well of the earth and then use yet more fuel to slow it down and land on the moon? And then, the same process in reverse when you send stuff back to earth? It's much easier to build an earth orbiting facility and do the job there.

BTW--I really started to get irritated with Don's use of the phrase, "dirty little secret" when imparting information that is common, public knowledge (yes, Don, the US space program did land capsules on water, but things can go wrong and you could very well end up in a jungle, which is why ALL astronauts undergo survival training--no secret about it. And as for Gog's point about the moon being, "just right" for the development of advanced life on earth, he's right--BUT you don't need an elaborate "space brothers" theory to explain it. The universe is very big and there are almost an infinite number of possibilities. We just won the lottery, that's all.

 

[Constance]

"The reason we did not go back to the moon is pretty straightforward--it's not that interesting."

That's not a good enough reason to ignore (or deny) the potential usefulness of the moon for our purposes in exploring space. Moreover, five or six earth nations have continued to study the moon from orbit. Why? I think such studies are primarily for the purpose of estimating the current extent of operations on Luna by a species other than our own, with a view toward the possibility of our species using it as a future base of space exploration operations.

 

[Brians238]

Hi, Constance. I would answer you by saying I am not sure what purpose the moon would serve in terms of our future space exploration. We do not need to go to the moon again in order to reach other planets; bases serve no purpose on the moon other than exploration and (as I wrote before), the moon is just a vacuum with gravity. As to current studies of the moon, they are based on 1). the political prestige of having the capability to reach the moon and 2). the moon is geologically interesting. As to alien species on the moon, I can see no evidence of that (all conspiracy theories to the contrary). Moreover, a moon base serves absolutely no purpose when it comes to future manned exploration of the solar system. It's the "inevitability" of physics--you don't need to spend the fuel to get into and out of the moon's gravitational well to explore Mars, the moons of Jupiter, etc. You can simulate these environments very well on earth before making the trip.

 

[dmanister]

Hi, Constance. I would answer you by saying I am not sure what purpose the moon would serve in terms of our future space exploration. We do not need to go to the moon again in order to reach other planets; bases serve no purpose on the moon other than exploration and (as I wrote before), the moon is just a vacuum with gravity. As to current studies of the moon, they are based on 1). the political prestige of having the capability to reach the moon and 2). the moon is geologically interesting. As to alien species on the moon, I can see no evidence of that (all conspiracy theories to the contrary). Moreover, a moon base serves absolutely no purpose when it comes to future manned exploration of the solar system. It's the "inevitability" of physics--you don't need to spend the fuel to get into and out of the moon's gravitational well to explore Mars, the moons of Jupiter, etc. You can simulate these environments very well on earth before making the trip.

Why "manned explorations?" Since we are already exploring beyond our solar system with unmanned spacecraft, what purpose would live crews serve?

 

[Constance]

@Brian238, perhaps you're correct about that, though there are certainly other well-informed people who seem to take the opposite perspective.

At any rate, there's also the potential value of our being able to mine Helium 3 from the moon (which might account for the indications of another species' activities there). The following is from the European Space Agency:

"Helium-3 Mining on the Lunar Surface

The idea of harvesting a clean and efficient form of energy from the Moon has stimulated science fiction and fact in recent decades. Unlike Earth, which is protected by its magnetic field, the Moon has been bombarded with large quantities of Helium-3 by the solar wind. It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products.

The Apollo programme's own geologist, Harrison Schmidt, has repeatedly made the argument for Helium-3 mining, whilst Gerald Kulcinski at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is another leading proponent. He has created a small reactor at the Fusion Technology Institute, but so far it has not been possible to create the helium fusion reaction with a net power output.

This has not stopped the search for Helium-3 from being a motivating factor in space exploration, however. Apart from the traditional space-faring nations, the India has previously indicated its interest in mining the lunar surface. The use of Moon resources was also part of Newt Gingrich's unsuccessful candidacy for the Republican party’s nomination for the US presidency in 2012.

Private enterprise is also interested in using fuel from the Moon – although possibly by extracting water rather than Helium-3. The Shackleton Energy company envisages providing propellant for missions throughout the Solar System using lunar water.


The Moon could be used as a base for further exploration
Some teams vying for the Google Lunar X-Prize also see mining as an ultimate goal of their landers. ESA has also considered using the Moon to help missions farther into the Solar System.

Arguments have also been made for mining Helium-3 from Jupiter, where it is much more abundant – it would need to be given the distances involved. Extracting the molecule from Jupiter would also be a less power-hungry process.

Not everyone is in agreement that Helium 3 will produce a safe fusion solution. In an article entitled "Fears over Factoids" in 2007, the theoretical physicist Frank Close famously described the concept as "moonshine". Either way, it seems we will have to be patient to find out the answers."

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/P...h/Energy/Helium-3_mining_on_the_lunar_surface

 

[Brians238]

dmanister--I am on the fence on this one. There is a case to be made that "boots on the ground" may have some advantages over automated methods of exploration. However, in terms of "bang for the buck," the only real alternative is probes--they are relatively cheap and return more science per dollar invested than any other method of exploration.

 

[Brians238]

@Brian238, perhaps you're correct about that, though there are certainly other well-informed people who seem to take the opposite perspective.

I agree than Helium 3 is an interesting factor; but the costs of establishing a moon base and the capabilities of mining it far outweigh its potential benefits; I've never seen a real cost/benefit analysis of the case for Helium 3, but I am certainly willing to be persuaded if someone puts one together

Best,

Brian

 

[Constance]

I agree than Helium 3 is an interesting factor; but the costs of establishing a moon base and the capabilities of mining it far outweigh its potential benefits; I've never seen a real cost/benefit analysis of the case for Helium 3, but I am certainly willing to be persuaded if someone puts one together

I'd bet that such cost/benefit analyses have been done, by the elected PTB, the MIC, space scientists, and environmentalists. This statement from the ESA article I cited --

"It is thought that this isotope could provide safer nuclear energy in a fusion reactor, since it is not radioactive and would not produce dangerous waste products." --

underscores our great need for this cleaner type of energy given the manifest pollution of earth by nuclear power and weapons over the last 65 years.

That we don't hear more about the need to exploit that resource on the moon -- and about plans to do so -- is further evidence that a more advanced species has been recognized to presently be active on the moon, perhaps mining Helium-3, perhaps for some other purpose..

 

[Brians238]

Hi, Constance--notice the words like "it is thought that...' by whom? where are the peer-reviewed articles to support the statement? and then "could provide" etc. It is all too speculative to attract the huge investment needed to exploit this resource, if it even exists in exploitable quantities and can be economically mined.

 

[Constance]

Hi, Constance--notice the words like "it is thought that...' by whom? where are the peer-reviewed articles to support the statement? and then "could provide" etc. It is all too speculative to attract the huge investment needed to exploit this resource, if it even exists in exploitable quantities and can be economically mined.

The ESA article indicates that businesses as well as space scientists are interested in exploiting Helium-3 on Luna. I could do a search for you of 'peer-reviewed articles' about Helium-3 and but I don't have the time, and you can do that yourself with little effort. I suspect that NASA and other agencies of the federal government have explored the subject and the possibilities, but we the people don't always have access to their research and discussions, do we?.

 

[moonsurfer2]

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I have heard Mr.Ecker complain about the missing Clementine images on his show and elsewhere.

I took a look at the Clementine data.

The "hi-res" camera was only 288 by 384 pixels!
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1994-004A&ex=06

So if that is good enough for you (and they say it resolves to 7-20 meters per pixel depending on altitude), you can download any of the "hi-res" images you want at the following web site:
Clementine Online Data Volumes

As an example, clicking on the following provides the database for 5 orbits.
Index of /archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001

This tab provides all the data you need to know where on the Moon (latitude and longitude of the corners and the center point) and when the images for all these 5 orbits, including a reference to exactly where the raw image data is in the directory. Note that this file is ~17 Meg, 20194 images of which 6557 are "hi-res".
http://pdsimage.wr.usgs.gov/archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001/index/imgindx.tab

This provides a label of the columns of data for the imgindx.tab data.
http://pdsimage.wr.usgs.gov/archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001/index/imgindx.lbl

Examining the imbindx.tab file, the first line is a HIRES image :"LHD00001A.032". It shows that the raw data is at the directory titled "LUN032/LHXXXXXX/LHXXXXXA/".

So you can save it to your computer.
http://pdsimage.wr.usgs.gov/archive...cl_0001/lun032/lhxxxxxx/lhxxxxxa/lhd0001a.032

This is the raw, compressed data.You must uncompress it to use it.

If you look at,
Index of /archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001/software
they have a variety of software you can use. Sadly, this software is "old" (2008). I have a newer PC and it doesn't work anymore because I have a different number of bits in my operating system (64 instead of 32 bit). But, they have source C code for the adventurous. There are Mac codes too I have not tried. Seems like alot of hassle, but if you have an old computer in the closet or have the energy to compile the C code, you too can view the good ole Clementine "Hi-Res" images.

Personally, I prefer LRO data.

 

[moonsurfer2]

Gobs mentions seeing tracks on the Moon. I wonder if he could provide a few locations so we can look at the LRO database. I have not found any that go uphill. Tracks of mechanisms should go in circles, back and forth or something. I could not find any tracks other than the astronaut, rovers and boulders.

 

[moonsurfer2]

Chris mentions the Blair Cuspids. LRO imaged those at good resolution. They look like boulders. One can even use trig to find their height. More data later.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gobs mentions seeing tracks on the Moon. I wonder if he could provide a few locations so we can look at the LRO database. I have not found any that go uphill. Tracks of mechanisms should go in circles, back and forth or something. I could not find any tracks other than the astronaut, rovers and boulders.

That'll be 'Gobs' Mackay, the mouthy, ugly sewer rat from Scotland....or my good self whose admittedly weird nickname is sometimes misheard, and was so misheard way back by both Gene and Chris and some others, so you are in good company!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gobs mentions seeing tracks on the Moon. I wonder if he could provide a few locations so we can look at the LRO database. I have not found any that go uphill. Tracks of mechanisms should go in circles, back and forth or something. I could not find any tracks other than the astronaut, rovers and boulders.

I'll look out a link for you. The photos I'm referring to are very well known in lunar mystery circles but perhaps not at all generally and if they interest you, it is something you simply must see!

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Gobs mentions seeing tracks on the Moon. I wonder if he could provide a few locations so we can look at the LRO database. I have not found any that go uphill. Tracks of mechanisms should go in circles, back and forth or something. I could not find any tracks other than the astronaut, rovers and boulders.

How about this:

lo5_h168_2_boulder.png