|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 24, 2006 20:23:57 GMT -4
I've always found that a sort of nonsensical HB argument.
That is, that we understand the radiation today, but didn't understand it then, therefor....
Therefor what? If we didn't know the hazard was there, we wouldn't have realized we needed to hoax the flights. If we thought it was hazardous (but it actually wasn't) we wouldn't have embarked on the flights in the first place.
The only way the HB argument works is if the radiation dangers are discovered at the last minute, and in such a way that only a very small number of people are privy to them. They also have to be extraordinarily specific; they can't be engineered around to permit human space travel, but they must permit electronics, low-level flight, and essentially all space activities from then until modern times. They have to be dangerous enough so the incredibly daring and risky effort of a hoaxed mission was the only viable option, yet subtle enough so almost no-one then -- or now!! -- realizes they were.
Ah, but this is the problem with HB's and their "word problem" approach to physics. It is easy enough to pick a word pair that neatly straddles the grey area and makes their claim plausible. It is only when you quantify that you realize the set of numbers that do not permit a mission in 1960 do not overlap with a set of numbers that permit everything we do and plan to do today.
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Oct 24, 2006 20:55:03 GMT -4
No worries cameron, looks like postbaguk, earnst, and myself are triple teaming HC now. should be fun. Let's see if I get banned for my pro-apollo arguements.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 24, 2006 21:32:16 GMT -4
Thanks a lot men i really appreciate it. I wonder who this Earnist chap is ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 24, 2006 21:33:47 GMT -4
This sounds completely backward to me. Don't quote me on this, but as I understand it, heat energy from the sun enters as IR (not UV), which is absorbed by matter inside the greenhouse, converted to heat energy, then released largely through conduction with the air, and to a much lesser degree, re-radiated as IR.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 24, 2006 21:35:38 GMT -4
Lol he wants you guys in on his old apollo thread.
How very silly he wants you to post in his thread instead of mine. Mind you they do want my thread to dissapear of the bottom of the board. ;D
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Oct 24, 2006 22:24:35 GMT -4
The sad part is I doubt this guy will ever be convinced. If we brought him to the moon to show him the remains left there, he'd think he was on a holodeck.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 24, 2006 23:22:22 GMT -4
As for the satalites he posted
I imagine that by the 21st century, after many more space missions and observations, we now have a fairly good idea of the nature of radiation in deep space
We (spacefaring nations, not just the U.S.) started building up our understanding of the near-Earth radiation environment very rapidly in the late '50s and similarly for the cislunar and lunar environments in the '60s. Apparently this guy is trying to say that we didn't know anything about it by the Apollo landings, which is just nonsense.
At least the manufacturers of spacecraft and satelites will be aware of any remaining uncertainty and build an apropriate margin of error into their designs.
But these same manufacturers (I work for one) have been using NASA data for decades. If it had been wrong, they would have found out quickly as their satellites and deep-space vehicles quit working prematurely.
But there is still a lot of uncertainty about; or at least there was in the 1980's and 90's
No. We don't have a complete picture now, but we've had a reasonably good picture for decades.
He's handwaving very confidently, but it's still just handwaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 24, 2006 23:29:53 GMT -4
The sad part is I doubt this guy will ever be convinced. If we brought him to the moon to show him the remains left there, he'd think he was on a holodeck. As everyone knows, holodeck technology is old hat - but we still can't land on the moon. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 25, 2006 6:15:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 25, 2006 6:16:34 GMT -4
As for the satalites he posted
I imagine that by the 21st century, after many more space missions and observations, we now have a fairly good idea of the nature of radiation in deep spaceWe (spacefaring nations, not just the U.S.) started building up our understanding of the near-Earth radiation environment very rapidly in the late '50s and similarly for the cislunar and lunar environments in the '60s. Apparently this guy is trying to say that we didn't know anything about it by the Apollo landings, which is just nonsense. At least the manufacturers of spacecraft and satelites will be aware of any remaining uncertainty and build an apropriate margin of error into their designs.But these same manufacturers (I work for one) have been using NASA data for decades. If it had been wrong, they would have found out quickly as their satellites and deep-space vehicles quit working prematurely. But there is still a lot of uncertainty about; or at least there was in the 1980's and 90'sNo. We don't have a complete picture now, but we've had a reasonably good picture for decades. He's handwaving very confidently, but it's still just handwaving. STS is it ok for me to use this post with a credit to you? |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 25, 2006 7:17:42 GMT -4
I was under the impression that the sunlight is much stronger on the Moon. On a clear day or night, this is incredibly easy to check. When you look straight up (90 degrees from the horizon), you're looking through one thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. Using a little trig, you find that when you look roughly 30 degrees (~3 hand's breadths when held at arm's length) up from the horizon you are looking through two thicknesses of the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore the difference in brightness of the Sun and stars when they are 1/3rd of the way up from the horizon as compared to when they are straight overhead is the same difference as between looking at them straight overhead as compared to looking at them with no atmosphere at all. Based on my own experience, the difference looks to be ~20-40%, though I'd like to check it with a light meter. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 25, 2006 8:26:21 GMT -4
So are you saying the light is 20-40% brighter on the moon?
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Oct 25, 2006 12:31:52 GMT -4
Well, maybe I was wrong. Ever since that first time I was wrong, I havn't been the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 25, 2006 13:11:21 GMT -4
As for the satalites he posted
I imagine that by the 21st century, after many more space missions and observations, we now have a fairly good idea of the nature of radiation in deep spaceWe (spacefaring nations, not just the U.S.) started building up our understanding of the near-Earth radiation environment very rapidly in the late '50s and similarly for the cislunar and lunar environments in the '60s. Apparently this guy is trying to say that we didn't know anything about it by the Apollo landings, which is just nonsense. At least the manufacturers of spacecraft and satelites will be aware of any remaining uncertainty and build an apropriate margin of error into their designs.But these same manufacturers (I work for one) have been using NASA data for decades. If it had been wrong, they would have found out quickly as their satellites and deep-space vehicles quit working prematurely. But there is still a lot of uncertainty about; or at least there was in the 1980's and 90'sNo. We don't have a complete picture now, but we've had a reasonably good picture for decades. He's handwaving very confidently, but it's still just handwaving. STS is it ok for me to use this post with a credit to you? Sure, if you want. I doubt that it will do any good. HBs like to claim that we didn't know anything about the radiation environment at the time of the Apollo missions, but it's simply not true. We had direct measurements. Our knowledge then was not complete - it's not complete even now - but it was good enough to mitigate the hazards with a combination of mission design, shielding, and procedures. Clavius' pages on the Van Allen Belts, solar particle events, and radiation/film issues explain this well. You might also point the guy to the Apollo Experience Report dealing with radiation protection. For a handy compilation of other documents related to Apollo and other manned spaceflight programs, see here. |
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Oct 25, 2006 13:32:15 GMT -4
We showed him the Clavius pages he described them as a load of crap.
More madness
|
|
