posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008
Very true...and I haven't suggested there are feet of it..or even a uniform coating of inches. *I* don't personally know anything about the moon.
I'd first become aware of the dust problem by reading about it over..and over..and over again in the various direct 1st person accounts from those of
the missions than landed on the Lunar surface. It's the same kind of endless bitching I've heard people in my family go on with about the sand in
In that way, the moon is a place where things change with the timelines of eons, by the look of things there. Dust settles..and just stays there.
Perhaps not forever, but close enough for Government work.
So imagine the most beautiful artwork in the world somehow laid out across a flat surface and mere centimeters of talc powder is spread across it
all...so at least a couple centimeters exists all over. Now you don't have the best display of Artwork ever seen. You simply have a flat expanse of
white talc powder. Even that thin a layer....UNLESS of course, someone comes and blows just a bit completely clean to peek beneath.
Imagine the surprise...to find a work of art below what would just be a thin coating of icky, boring talc powder.
The world is a boring place without imagination, right? Without the drive to find things just because they're there, we may as well write off space
entirely. We'll never get there if profit is the only motive to do it.