|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 14:45:32 GMT -4
I love how it's become fashionable for hoax believers to sprinkle a little magic compartmentalization dust over the Apollo project and claim that's enough to keep nearly all of the 400,000 who worked on it in the dark as to its true nature.
Such people haven't a clue how scientists or engineers think, operate and interact, especially in a program that by its nature was one of the most open and best documented technical efforts in human history. It has never been easier for anyone to get those documents and to see for themselves exactly how Apollo worked in every one of its subsystems. (That does admittedly take a fair bit of technical understanding and a sincere desire to learn, two traits few hoax believers seem to share.)
Many of the original documents of the Manhattan Project are still classified, yet over the years the public has managed to piece together much of the details of how the bombs (there were at least two) were designed and operated. And it's completely beyond dispute that the bombs actually worked. It's not even considered hard anymore for a competent engineering or physics student to design what would probably be a working bomb. What keeps everyone from doing so is instead the difficulty of obtaining the necessary raw materials, not the knowledge of how to use them. Technical knowledge is hard to suppress, especially when it's based on universal laws of physics. That atomic bombs were indeed possible was the only real secret of the Manhattan Project, and that secret was no more after August 1945. As many of the leaders of the Manhattan Project then tried to say to anyone who would listen "There is no secret!"
And that was a project famous for its attempt to keep secrets, as opposed to the Apollo project that was famous (and probably unprecedented) for its openness.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 7, 2011 16:34:40 GMT -4
fattydash, you haven't really thought this one through.
Based on one handwaving reference to an early paper and a brief if-I-ran-the-zoo allusion to mission planning, you expect people to seriously consider that there might be grounds to disbelieve Apollo happened because of some issue with radiation. You have no data to support this claim, no explanation of the actual evidence for the missions, and no grasp whatsoever of the scale of how many people would see through this immediately - and by that I mean qualified people, for-real scientists and engineers.
And I don't just mean Americans during the program; I mean people worldwide, in all the years since. If the Apollo radiation data was completely out of whack with reality, it's not just all the space physicists who would know it; it's all the satellite engineers and operators and telecom outfits and DirecTV and the guys who send Sirius/XM tunes to my car and, oh yes, let's not forget the insurance companies who underwrite the satellites that would be failing prematurely if something was amiss.
But we really don't need to even to talk about them, because you don't really have an argument; you just have a feeling that something might not be right. To put it bluntly, at this point it sounds like you're simply casting around for anything you can think of to support your belief that Apollo was faked, whether it's in your self-described field of expertise or not, and whether or not you really know anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 23:26:40 GMT -4
The HBs still believe that space is the sole domain of the governments of spacefaring nations...they cannot conceive that there are a lot of privately manufactured, owned, launched and operated satellites up there. Strictly regulated, yes, but still privately owned.
There's no government monopoly on knowledge of the space environment.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 23:37:26 GMT -4
The HBs still believe that space is the sole domain of the governments of spacefaring nations...they cannot conceive that there are a lot of privately manufactured, owned, launched and operated satellites up there. And among those privately manufactured, owned and operated (but still publicly launched) satellites are some built by radio amateurs ("hams"). One of my first projects when I volunteered for AMSAT in 1980 was to study the effect of Van Allen belt radiation on the computer memory chips that were planned for the next satellite. It would have to fly through those belts twice every orbit, so it was a real concern. In the end there were too many uncertainties for me to provide a firm number, but relying on the standard models I said they could last anywhere between 1 and 6 years. They actually failed after 3. Now how could a purported NASA conspiracy hide the true nature of the space radiation environment from a bunch of individuals that includes me? Maybe I'm part of the conspiracy?? I'm sure some hoaxers think that...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 8, 2011 6:00:27 GMT -4
I think the LM design is fine. One of my favorite books of all time was/is Mike Gray's "Angle of Attack". LM...check. Completely capable of doing it's mission of safely transporting two astronauts to and from the surface, and housing them safely in the interim. OK, how about the radiation environment...was that the show stopper? Was it the searing radiation hell of the VAB, or the cislunar solar/gamma radiation? Was the CM/suits not up to protecting the astronauts? Trying to find the smoking gun that required the hoaxing of the flights... Gee, where did fattydash go? Funny how as soon as he is asked to be specific, it's off onto another topic. BTW, may I ask participants to not give him too many clues on what he needs to Google... So, fattydash, as a doctor an' all, tell us how would you approach this radiation question? Should be right up your street. And is it your favorite 'proof'? If not, what is?Remember, you raised it, so YOU give us a quick outline on how you would proceed.I've already done it, so I'd love to see if I've forgotten anything...A quick tip, fattydash. Be very careful - there are a few traps for ill-informed players or pretenders... But you should be fine, right, given your knowledge of radiation for cancer patients.... {..cough..}
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 8, 2011 6:10:46 GMT -4
... OK, how about the radiation environment...was that the show stopper? Was it the searing radiation hell of the VAB, or the cislunar solar/gamma radiation? Was the CM/suits not up to protecting the astronauts? Trying to find the smoking gun that required the hoaxing of the flights... Catering...? Apologies for repeating that, but it is sooo apt.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 20:10:05 GMT -4
Fair enough. We deal with radiation all the time in the context of treating cancer patients. I make no claims as regards expertise. I am familiar with the basics. Were I to read the relevant material, my opinion would be far from gospel. that said, I imagine I would not struggle gaining a command of the facts. Let's start with your understanding of the basics. What types of radiation could the astronauts be exposed to? Let's start with an agreed format for your answer. Source Particle types Particle energies Electromagnetic radiation Photon energies I would not expect any more if your understanding is basic. I can deal with each point in turn, and you can counter each point in turn if you have objections. That way we can resolve gaps in your basic understanding.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 8, 2011 20:18:12 GMT -4
I love how it's become fashionable for hoax believers to sprinkle a little magic compartmentalization dust over the Apollo project and claim that's enough to keep nearly all of the 400,000 who worked on it in the dark as to its true nature. Magic compartmentalization dust can be used to defend all logical fallacies, surely you know that It's like the argument 'we have not gone back since 1972, therefore I don't believe we have ever been. Surely we would have returned.' That one gets trumped when the going gets tough. Another argument that I have seen recently is 'were you personally there when Astronaut A did B?' That one borders on paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 8, 2011 22:32:37 GMT -4
chrtz...thx for the comic relief. Thet was terrific.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jul 13, 2011 22:01:28 GMT -4
Your link leads me to a 404. Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproves the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 13, 2011 22:30:48 GMT -4
Your link leads me to a 404. Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproves the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place. Bald assertions with no substantiation. Got anything to back this up? Tell us, what was the show stopper. Why couldn't they go?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 14, 2011 0:17:57 GMT -4
Your link leads me to a 404. Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproved the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place. Wrong. But it did take a full 30 seconds or so of typing "lunar radiation electrostatic" into the search form provided by the 404 page to find the story on the NASA Science News web site, including an active link to the original paper.
|
|
|
Post by tikkitakki on Jul 14, 2011 2:46:41 GMT -4
Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproved the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place. Wrong. But it did take a full 30 seconds or so of typing "lunar radiation electrostatic" into the search form provided by the 404 page to find the story on the NASA Science News web site, including an active link to the original paper. Also, a working link can be found two posts below BertL's post.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 14, 2011 6:14:41 GMT -4
Your link leads me to a 404. Not surprising.. NASA won't keep anything up that disproves the moon landings... They lied about them in the first place. As you raised this issue ( the corrected link is about radiation), vincent, are you willing to back up your comment and debate it fully? Fattydash seems to be unwilling to take it on, but it's a subject I have spent quite a lot of time on, so, shall we discuss it in detail? I'm happy to start from first principles and go through it step by step. If you wish to dispute anything, you will need citations, logic and actual numbers. The exact same rules will apply to me. Ready when you are... Added: BTW, I forgot to re-iterate what you have already been asked - is radiation the 'show-stopper'? If not, what is? If your favorite evidence is shown to be false, will that affect your belief in any way? And I like your signature. How apt.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Jul 14, 2011 9:56:46 GMT -4
chrtz,
I think you are wasting your time. Every person I ever debated that said radiation was a show stopper had one thing in common, a complete lack of any knowledge about ionizing radiation. None of them had any idea what the radiation levels between the Earth and the moon were. They had no idea what kinds of radiation were present or the energy levels. They did not know how doses were measured or recorded. They did not know what kinds of shielding were appropriate for various kinds of radiation. The only thing they could agree on was that the radiation levels were too high, but how they determined this without knowing the radiation levels is beyond me.
Ranb
|
|