From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Nasa Coverup
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:14:02 GMT

>      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
> 


Not true. Current theory is based on supercomputer simulation that shows a final  
Mars sized planetisimal collision with earth created the Moon. Don't argue that  
here, go to the literature. There is loads of stuff on it.

>    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."
> 


True. There is no such theory and never has been.

>      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.
> 


True, the rocks are older. The moon does not have plate tectonics. Very little  
of it's crust has been turned over since the late bombardment period. The Earth  
turns over oceanic crust in 100MY or so; other crust is bent, twisted, turned  
over, scraped along continental margins, uplifted, downlifted, sedimented,  
covered with lava, eroded by wind and water...

Other than some central canadian; Australian; Greenland and central CSR(?)  
areas, very little old crust is available at the Earth's surface.

>     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
> 

> 


Gravitational focusing is certainly one reason. There are other dynamical  
reasons as well. I'll let some astronomers explain it more accurately than I  
can.

>     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
> 


Ah, yes. Stainless steel. Iron and Nickel. That's what some asteroids are made  
of. You can buy pieces from the Barringer crater that are considerably older  
than that and are not rusted. I've held one in my hand. About 40KY old isn't it?

>     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?
> 


I know nothing about this, but if you are right, maybe I'll get rich before Nick  
Szabo :-) Nothing like fissionables for power and active magmatics for creating  
useable veins of minerals.


>      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,
> 


The lunar materials brought back are indeed hyperdry. There is no reason to  
believe that volatiles do not exist in permanently dark craters at the lunar  
poles. This has been a subject of debate on this digest for years. We all hope  
to see results from a lunar orbitting gamma ray spectrometer to settle it once  
and for all.

As to clouds: there is an amateur astronomy group that studies Transient Lunar  
Phenomena. There could be lunar volcanic activities, venting and such. It is not  
the prevalent idea, but it does not break anyones models too badly if TLI prove  
to be real. That is the caveat. They might be venting or they might be lighting  
effects. We probably won't really know until we get "ground truth" from some of  
the areas where they are most commonly seen. It really is neither spectacular  
nor embarrassing. Again, if true, it would be damned useful.

>      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.
> 


I have heard no such thing. I have seen many pictures and have seen no such  
thing. The surface is grey dust that has been gardened by micrometeorite impacts  
for aeons. Again, the literature on this is wide and deep and has been much  
discussed here over the years because it is relevant to lunar resource  
extraction. I would suggest you start with the proceedings from the first Lunar  
Base Symposium.

>      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.
> 


You haven't been reading very much then. There is discussion of it in a number  
of texts I have read. I think "The New Solar System" was one with an excellent  
technical summary of lunar geology.

Besides which, as was pointed out, the Earth has MASCONS too. There are gravity  
anomalies anywhere the crust is a bit thicker. Central mare are the impact sites  
of some rather large objects and were thereafter the site of massive flood  
basalts. Read that as: a great thickening of the crust. 



>   10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?

Yes. We should have bases there by now.


Newsgroups: sci.space