|
Post by tedward on Feb 17, 2011 17:16:45 GMT -4
Don't. Please try to back up your previous statements with evidence and show exactly what in them would be fatal. Actually, try backing 'any' of your previous statements up with actual evidence. It would make a change. Edit to add: The only 'evidence' you have presented so far is a children's book you can't remember and can't name. Do you have any idea how pathetic that is? I've added more since then. I've looked for figures on the internet for the dimensions and consistency of the Van Allen Belts and come up with two contradictory quotes. That's worrying if you're planning a space mission today, let along 40 years ago! This post is an answer to all the people, I've lost count how many, who asked me for additional evidence. Bold mine. One of them would be me. No, asked for any evidence not additional. To use the additional you need to provide some first. I take you have none then. Fine, "they went" stands. Until you prove it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 17, 2011 17:50:59 GMT -4
Let me repeat my current question.
What would it take to convince you they went?
|
|
|
Post by jd on Feb 18, 2011 6:47:12 GMT -4
But we can use it to ascertain that those first explorers could have made the trip safely. THAT is the point. You seem to be hung up on this idea that we knew nothing about the radiation in space before sending men out there, but that's just crap. Not nothing at all, no. But we have to see things from the political and media perspective. Columbus and Magellan didn't have TV cameras on board their ships, the success and failure of their missions wasn't a crucial lynchpin of their nations dominaence of the globe (That came later and there's some VERY interesting stories relating to fake expeditions on Earth centuries before we got out into space. ) Oh, the Russians! Thereby hangs a tail! Not nothing at all, no. ? Well Hagbard why did you post whats below on another forum a few days ago? Posted by Hagbard Celine on his own forum Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:15 pm:
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 18, 2011 7:15:41 GMT -4
Do any space historians, enginers and scientists even consider that Apollo might have been faked when they talk of the radiation? Do you really think they wouldn't NOTICE, for heaven's sake? It is well known that Apollo went to the Moon, or claimed to go to the Moon, so how do you think all those people who have studied the radiation have utterly failed to think 'hang on a miute, this is rather high to send men through'? Oh for heaven's sake what is the point of talking to you when you stubbornly refuise to read and take in what you have been told SO MANY TIMES. How do you propose something with no fixed edge and a constantly changing nature be EXACTLY defined? EXACTLY how far up does Earth's atmosphere extend? EXACTLY how far from Earth does its gravitational force extend? EXACTLY how deep is the Atlantic ocena? EXACTLY how big are cumulonimbus clouds? Why don't you try answering a simple question JUST FOR ONCE! They are NOT contradictory. You only think they are because you frankly know NOTHING of any practical use about them. You have been given information by the shedload. Links, diagrams, examples and so on. Still you think that a few Wiki articles and some quick Googling equips you well enough to judge the actions of professionals and experts. You are an amazingly arrogant and ignorant individual.
|
|
|
Post by jd on Feb 18, 2011 9:28:38 GMT -4
So you're telling me that if I got hit by just one of those nasty 50 MeV particles I'd be a goner? No? If not one, then how many? Show your work. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but I know that some of these particles in certain circumstances, can be dangerous. Now I know that the Van Allen Belt particles are not like X and gamma rays, they don't need sheilding by heavy metals, as you'd need in a hospital radiotherpy chamber or nuclear powerplant. But they still can cause damage depending on their intansity. I'm sorry I don't have the exact figures now, but I have them and I'm looking for them. Dont hold your breath!!!!!! Hes been telling me that now for well over 10 years. Its round his dads house or so he says.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 18, 2011 10:52:14 GMT -4
I'd like hagbardceline to address why NASA would hesitate to send astronauts unless they knew it was absolutely safe, when test pilots in other areas were exposed to extreme risks, and had a very high death toll.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 18, 2011 12:18:19 GMT -4
I'd like hagbardceline to address why NASA would hesitate to send astronauts unless they knew it was absolutely safe, when test pilots in other areas were exposed to extreme risks, and had a very high death toll. Good point. Gene Kranz said in Failure Is Not An Option (page 52-3): "It wasn't a subject anyone talked about openly, but we in MCC fully expected to lose one or two astronauts in Mercury." They didn't lose anyone, of course, but the risk was there. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if HagbardCeline also had some sort of conspiracy theory about Mercury...
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Feb 18, 2011 12:51:22 GMT -4
They were lucky.
But lucky is relative. Seven NASA astronauts died during training even before the first manned Apollo flight.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 18, 2011 14:36:30 GMT -4
Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if HagbardCeline also had some sort of conspiracy theory about Mercury... Of course! All you have to do is think conspiratorially. This means that you believe there are vast conspiracies behind everything and that you don't need evidence to show it. This is apparently better than the method which has improved our lives all these years, the one which requires evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 3:51:47 GMT -4
I Know They Are Variable And I Know They're Not Spherical ;D I'm afraid it would take me far too long to answer every single post addressed to me on this matter. But actually the very fact that the Belts are variable, irregular and... what was that word again?... amorphous. But doesn't this add to their unpredicatability if you're planning a space mission. Now imagine you're the head of a NASA project. I'm building a rocket to send a manned craft on a high-altitude mission through the suspected upper limits of the Van Allen Belts. Now I go looking for data in the published material. What do I find? Condradictory and diverging figures!? Am I going to risk the lives of people I'm responsible for in such a way? Or am I going to wait a few years for my colleagues in space radiation research to come up with better estimates?
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:07:04 GMT -4
Why would HagbardCeline want that document? He's got his George W Bush Presidential Library to refer to: a children's book and a book bought at a science museum (ooh!), both of which he's looked at in the last 30 years. /sarcasm Ha ha ha! ;D ;D Well I could if I'm in the area. I live in Oxford, so I've got the best and brightest on my doorstep . I did try this once and the individual just gave me a scornful look and shook his head. However is it necessary to talk face to face with somebody anyway? These people do publish their findings. Actually the BBC's science team did a TV experiment where they asked the designer Rusi Taleyarkhan to participlate in person and he declined. However the BBC reproduced his experiment based on his published papers.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:10:28 GMT -4
but I know that some of these particles in certain circumstances, can be dangerous. In what 'circumstances' are those? And do you have the title of that book yet? I posted it above: The Young Scientists' Guide to Spaceflight. And what circumstances? If you travelled into the Belts and stayed there for any length of time, a month say, with no protection at all.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:20:35 GMT -4
Okay, I think it's time for what I consider the most absolutely fundamental question in this kind of case. What would it take to convince you that you were wrong, Hagbard? That's a good question. I used to think that if I saw the remains of the lunar bases myself if I went to the moon I'd know that it had been done. But even then I'd wonder if I was still being conned. The recent Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter mission showed what appeared to be the remains of a LM decent stage, but was it? I don't necessarily go along with Jarrah White's view that these photoes were Photoshopped, although I don't rule it out. Those artifacts could be models, balsawood frames. If I was ever in a spacesuit walking through the remains of Tranqulity Base and the Eagle I'd be very impressed indeed, but then I'd have to add the proviso: If I'm not being hypnotized by government mind control. I know this makes my opinion virtually unfalsifiable, but I've answered your question honestly. We are living in George Orwell's "age of universal deceit" whether we like it or not. If you want me to lie and be a hypocrite just say the word and I'll repeat after you: We really did go to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 4:25:20 GMT -4
I'm afraid it would take me far too long to answer every single post addressed to me on this matter. Bull. They're all asking substantially the same thing. No, it gives you a range to work with, so you can identify the worst case then add a safety margin. They are NOT contradictory and diverging, they are variable within a range. That is what ALL real scientific data is like. No, you're going to work with the information you have and build in a safety margin, the same way all engineering projects work.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 4:26:19 GMT -4
And what circumstances? If you travelled into the Belts and stayed there for any length of time, a month say, with no protection at all. So nothing remotely related to any actual flight to the Moon then. OK....
|
|