Well Well Well

Well Well Well 
Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well Well
Many wells make a river, as the Ruffian saying has it.
     This may seem unconnected, but we are back to the "History of the 18th Division in the Great War", which has been a corking read, and we still have two months to go.  
     If you recall the Great War, then you recall that although there were plenty of motor vehicles, and progressively more as time went on, the prime mover was principally the horse.

Thus

     "They are taking the hobbits to Isengard!" - sorry, I'm watching "The Two Towers" and Legolas just quoted that meme-generating line
     Anyway, back to horses.  Whereas you stick fuel and lubricant and fill the radiator with water in a truck, the horse requires fodder and water.  Plus a rest every so often.  In the companion volume to the 18th's history ("Defiance!"), the horses of the 82nd Artillery Brigade cope well in their long and strenuous retreat during March, partly because Colonel Thorp, the Brigade commander, ensures that at every halt their horses get watered.

TLC for Dobbin

     At this point in their history, the 18th Div. has just captured the ruins of Combles, a small French town tumbled to bits thanks to artillery fire and street fighting.

 - or what's left of it.

     Enter the Royal Engineers.  One of their innumerable tasks was to provide water for both troops and horses, which they did by sinking wells, and they immediately had 6 going in Combles.  By the time 18th Div. left Combles, there were 23 wells in operation, more than enough to supply the needs of thirsty humans and horses alike.  Water supply on the Western Front: not a topic folks give much attention to, yet essential all the same.
     Which is where today's title comes from.
     Now to sit the motley in a deckchair attached to 28 weather balloons and see how high we can send it!

Lunar Regolith
Or, if you want to be less formal, lunar soil.  You know, the stuff that lies on the surface of the Moon.  Which is where we most definitely want it to stay.  Dangerous stuff, lunar regolith.
     I can hear you query that.  
     "How can a bit of dust be dangerous, Conrad?" you ask.  Oh, I thought you'd never do that!

Possibly the most famous footprint photo ever.

     The thing about moon dust is that it is created purely by mechanical effects; there is no oxidising, no water involved in erosion, no wind nor any biological processes in play, resulting in a highly-reactive dust that has very sharp edges.  If inhaled it could cause significant damage to human lungs, thanks to all those sharp edges, quite besides any chemical effects.  Thus, in "Apollo 18" you can understand why one of the Command Module crewmen gets the billy crins when his mate smashes a piece of lunar rock inside the Command Module: it's not merely potentially toxic, it can abrade surfaces thanks to friction and destroy air-tight seals.  Ooer Missus!

Apollo 18: they discover the Sinister's Proton Lander

     This is quite the topical subject, since the Populous People's Dictatorship intends to land it's Chang e 5 and 6 probes on the Moon, in order to bring back moon dust.

No, Arthur - that's not what we want!

Shooting The Moon
Normally, if this were a post title, Conrad would shortly be posting pictures of the Moon getting hit with an atom bomb.
     Today?  Not quite.
     Here's the background.  When I go shopping in Morrison's, I usually make a note of some of their DVD titles on sale, because I felt convinced that their DVD purchaser had a bit of a thing for Bad Films.  Many of the titles have execrable ratings on IMDB, despite their covers looking awesome - which I suppose is where their budget went.
     So here is "Moon Shot", starring Andrew Lincoln.  Art?

Our Andrew.  A Brit.

     This is from 2009, so I don't know why it's suddenly appeared on the shelves now.  It also scores 6.5 on IMDB, which translates as "Pretty Good, Actually", and it was nominated for several Emmy's.
     So that rather scotches my Bad Film afficionado theory.
     However!  There's another DVD title to check out - "Day of the Dead: Bloodline".  Art?

Ho hum.

     Now, this one validates my point.  It's a uniformly despised, hated, abhorred and reviled remake of an earlier George Romero film of the same title.  It scores 3.4 on IMDB, which translates as "Pretty Much A Suckathon" and most of the IMDB viewer reviews exhibit a forlorn-ness that they can never get back the time they spent watching this drivel.  So be warned.  The plot has holes big enough to fly Apollo 18 through, asking not so much for a willing suspension of disbelief as putting it in a packing crate and sending it to China on a slow boat.

Conrad: feeling validated and happy.  Yes, really.

     Oh yes, about the original.  Art?

Symbolism.  Or something.

     This I have seen, and it's pretty bleak: humans are outnumbered by zombies by a hundred-thousand to one, there's no cure, our intrepid band of survivors are getting whittled down one at a time, there's a rime of zombies around the perimeter fence that keeps growing - you know, all the staple stuff.
     It must have hit a target audience, as it was made for just £2 million (1985 pounds, back when they counted for a bit) and reeled in £20 million worldwide.  Of course, it had *quality* also working for it, which never hurts.

Oh the humanity!  Playing Barry Manilow 24/7 counts as cruel and unusual punishment, you know.

     Hmmm.  We appear to have gone off on a tangent.  Oh well, so what - I mean, it's not as if you have to pay to read this scrivel.  Time to shave and shower -