Mirrors on the moon

[porphyry]

One of the most frequently cited proofs of the Apollo lunar missions, is that they left behind mirrors for use in laser range finding experiments. However, "HB"s claim that the mirrors could have been placed by unmanned craft.

How many of these mirrors exist on the moon, and have all their locations been plotted? Is any of this information available in peer-reviewed journals?

While photons can be bounced off the moon anywhere, the mirrors are highly reflective and thus they stand out against the background. Have there been any systematic scans of the lunar surface to check if there are any mirror-like rocks or geographical formations that could be reflective enough to trigger a detection?

[scooter]

The mirrors (laser reflectors, actually) have been targeted with ground based lasers since they were placed decades ago. The lunar surface does reflect a very small amount of the laser back towards Earth, but it's negligible compared to the "clean" signal received from shooting the reflectors.
I'm sure there are many reports available, if you choose to look for them.

[tedward]

You could have a look here.

I have found it very interesting. There are examples of returns to the area's with the reflectors and area's without (distinctly different) if you search the web. As I understand it the reflectors were set up manually. The Russian ones were not and one returns a lot lesser rate and the other has failed.

If you bolt the mirror to the top of a rover and it lands at an odd angle then what would you expect to return? It would seem that the US managed to either place them all accurately, or lucky beyond odds at getting them remote placed. I will go with the former as the supporting evidence provides proof that they went. This is an experiment that has been very useful.

What do you think?



PS, there is another site that I cannot find the link for at the moment with data that you can examine. Just tables of figures but with a key to see what is what.

[JayUtah]

Feb 6, 2010 12:41:42 GMT -4 porphyry said:

...

However, "HB"s claim that the mirrors could have been placed by unmanned craft.

There is no contention to the proposition that LRRRs can be placed on unmanned landers. This is how the Soviets did it; we know it's indeed possible.

But there's no evidence that's how the Apollo reflectors were placed.

Turn the problem around. Imagine that someone claimed the Soviets could not possibly have landed unmanned reflectors on the Moon. Imagine that the claim was that they had been placed instead by secret cosmonauts. That theory would run afoul of the available facts: there is no evidence of any such Soviet manned missions, and considerable evidence for the construction and operation of the Lunakhod probe. The evidence clearly speaks in one direction, and in one direction only.

Similarly the claim that Apollo reflectors were placed by unmanned spacecraft runs afoul of the converse evidentiary problem: there is no evidence that any such unmanned vehicles were made or launched in the U.S., and considerable evidence that manned missions were constructed and attempted. Here too the evidence speaks clearly in one direction, and in one direction only.

Those are equivalent arguments. The only difference in how hoax believers treat them is in the bias against manned missions. Logically and evidentiarily they are equivalent. This is especially salient when you realize that not long ago in Soviet circles, that converse argument was made! In the Soviet Union the bias was against automated missions -- Russian laymen did not believe that degree of automation was possible, and so argued that the "unmanned" space probes of various kinds were actually secretly manned by KGB agents.

How many of these mirrors exist on the moon

5 -- 3 from Apollo and 2 from unmanned Soviet missions.

and have all their locations been plotted?

Yes, with great precision.

Is any of this information available in peer-reviewed journals?

It's freely available on the Internet
www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.html

I don't see why peer review is necessary for this question. Peer review is indicated where there is a question of methodological correctness or where a line of reasoning may go awry. A researcher's peers validate his research methods and test his lines of reasoning.

The Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report, I believe, has information regarding early attempts to use the Apollo 11 LRRR.

While photons can be bounced off the moon anywhere, the mirrors are highly reflective and thus they stand out against the background.

By orders of magnitude. This has been verified by observatories all over the world.

Have there been any systematic scans of the lunar surface to check if there are any mirror-like rocks...

A "mirror-like rock" will not mimic a retroreflector. A retroreflector is an engineered product requiring three orthogonal reflecting surfaces and has optical properties very different from an ordinary mirror. Do you contend that such a construct could arise naturally?

...or geographical formations that could be reflective enough to trigger a detection?

What is your prima facie evidence that any such "geographical formation" (I assume you meant to say "geological") having those properties could exist?

I understand the affirmative rebuttal you're trying to make but you need to be more straightforward about it. No, to my knowledge there have been no systematic surveys to rule out natural retroreflectors. But before you try to say that this is a suspicious omission, you have to show how likely it is that such a survey would be interesting. You have to show that there is a plausible belief that such localized retroreflectors would arise naturally, and that the interest in discovering them justifies a systematic search by laser of the entire visible lunar surface.

You must realize that by making such an affirmative rebuttal you bear the burden of proof for it. If you argue that what is being allegedly reflected from the engineered reflectors is actually being reflected from a natural phenomenon, you need to prove it. The lack of a systematic survey to eliminate such possibilities is not proof.

[blackstar]

Feb 6, 2010 12:41:42 GMT -4 porphyry said:

One of the most frequently cited proofs of the Apollo lunar missions, is that they left behind mirrors for use in laser range finding experiments. However, "HB"s claim that the mirrors could have been placed by unmanned craft.

How many of these mirrors exist on the moon, and have all their locations been plotted? Is any of this information available in peer-reviewed journals?

While photons can be bounced off the moon anywhere, the mirrors are highly reflective and thus they stand out against the background. Have there been any systematic scans of the lunar surface to check if there are any mirror-like rocks or geographical formations that could be reflective enough to trigger a detection?

Given your last question porphyry I have to ask, did you look up what a laser retroreflector actually is before posting? it is not simply a mirror. try this link for a detailed description and you'll see that the idea of a reflective rock just doesn't cut it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

[porphyry]

Thank you all for your replies.

Jay wrote:

"This has been verified by observatories all over the world."

Has any of this been published by any of these observatories in any peer reviewed journal?

"I don't see why peer review is necessary for this question."

Peer review is considered a basic, routine practice in science. It doesn't necessarily guarantee correctness, unfortunately. But anybody can publish anything on the Internet; there's no quality control at all.

Any result that isn't peer reviewed is automatically highly suspect and irregular if there's any controversy.

[gillianren]

Location doesn't have to be established by peer review. I'm not sure why you think it does.

[cos]

Feb 6, 2010 16:19:12 GMT -4 porphyry said:

...
Any result that isn't peer reviewed is automatically highly suspect and irregular if there's any controversy.

But their isn't any controversy in the engineering and scientific community about this experiment and you saying so does not make it so.
You seem to have got hold of the phrase 'Peer Reviewed' and have no concept as to what it means and when it should apply. There is nothing to 'Peer Review' here. The experiment and equipment was well documented prior to the missions so engineers were well aware of the specs, the locations were publicised and the results have been published in numerous scientific journals over decades for all to see. Anyone, to this day can repeat the experiment. No technically literate person has any issue with these reflectors. Laser reflective rocks! Bounce a laser off the moon and you'll only find them at the locations of the known reflectors. Bit of a coincidence huh?

[Jason]

The aforementioned Mythbusters episode also had the guys go to an observatory where they bounced a laser off of the retroreflector left by - Apollo 15, I believe.

They showed what a retrorefelctor looked like, photos of the Apollo guys setting one up on the moon, and had the observatory bounce a laser off of a random portion of the moon to compare it to the Apollo 15 site.

[JayUtah]

Feb 6, 2010 16:19:12 GMT -4 porphyry said:

...

Thank you all for your replies.

You're welcome. Now please answer my questions about your theory of "mirror-like rocks" or allegedly retroreflective geology.

Has any of this been published by any of these observatories in any peer reviewed journal?

Published, yes. Peer review is not necessary in this case because there is no line of reasoning at stake or any methodological complexity. It is a simple empirical demonstration.

Does an observatory's photograph of the Moon require peer review in order to be valid?

Peer review is considered a basic, routine practice in science.

Only where indicated, such as in the cases where I mentioned. Are you a trained scientist? Have you ever published anything in a peer-reviewed journal? Have you ever participated in a professional peer review?

But anybody can publish anything on the Internet; there's no quality control at all.

You certainly don't apply that standard to David McGowan or Jarrah White.

Any result that isn't peer reviewed is automatically highly suspect and irregular if there's any controversy.

Explain what legitimate controversy arises out of laser range-finding.

[porphyry]

Jay,

About the "mirror like rocks" what I mean is any formation that could be reflective enough to trigger the detectors. If I were writing for publication I would come up with some more elaborate jargon.

Asking about my background does seem like a legitimate question and I have nothing to hide.

Yes I have been through the peer review process, both as author and reviewer. My real name is Dr. Gerald S. Russell. Education: BA Physics, Occidental College; MSEE, Stanford University; PhD Cognitive Psychology, University of Oregon. My pub list is not that long, because I went into the business world after my graduation(s).

My most recent employer was Electrical Geodesics, Inc., where (among other things) I designed a photogrammetry system for recording the location of electrodes of a high-density electroencephalographic system. But nowadays I mostly spend my time reading about history, and tending a small herd of milk cows.

Perhaps there is nothing controversial about the mirrors, but the other criteria for publication is novelty, and I can't imagine there weren't some innovations involved in tracking those mirrors on the moon.

So when you say this has never been published, my astonishment is almost beyond words. I read the Wikipedia article about this, and it didn't cite any pubs either.

Dave McGowan is an old friend of mine. He knows squat about science and technology, which should be obvious enough from his article. I talked to him on the phone the other night and I begged him to make some changes in the article, because it's really an embarrassment to him.

But he has tremendous insight about the political process in this country -- and if he thinks there's a problem about the Apollo missions, I'm willing to check it out.

If this is really true that this mirror information has never been published in a journal, I'll definitely be getting back to McGowan about that.

[JayUtah]

Feb 6, 2010 19:15:13 GMT -4 porphyry said:

...

About the "mirror like rocks" what I mean is any formation that could be reflective enough to trigger the detectors.

I understand why you're asking about that possibility. What I asked is whether you have any understanding in geology that would suggest whether such a thing is actually plausible. That is, what's your prima facie evidence that what you propose as an affirmative alternative actually exists?

Asking about my background does seem like a legitimate question and I have nothing to hide.

Well done. Now would you please explain what a peer review would propose to examine in a laser ranging operation?

So when you say this has never been published, my astonishment is almost beyond words.

When did I say that? I named one publication I was aware of, I pointed out that this experiment is carried out many times by observatories all over the world (and is therefore not considered controversial or problematic), and I disputed your assertion that peer review was necessary in this matter. You're twisting that to make it sound like I claim no publications have been made that meet your criteria. Surely you must know what an argument from silence looks like.

You're clearly experienced in academic research. What research have you done to look for such a peer-reviewed articles aside from Wikipedia? You don't seem to have done a very good job of researching my background, so I'm naturally skeptical that you have run the gamut on this.

But [David McGowan] has tremendous insight about the political process in this country -- and if he thinks there's a problem about the Apollo missions, I'm willing to check it out.

But so far his arguments about "problems" in the Apollo missions rely upon a knowledge of science and technology, upon which you agree he is woefully ignorant. His writings touch little on politics. If his uncanny insight into politics makes him wary of Apollo, then so be it. But when he attempts to buttress that suspicion with clearly failing arguments in areas he knows nothing about, then that to me provides evidence only of substantial bias. He wants to believe in a faked Apollo regardless of what it takes to make his belief sound reasonable.

[porphyry]

Jay,

The link you posted was to a web page. That web page did not contain direct links to any peer reviewed papers.

If you want to ask me any more hostile, baiting questions, go talk to me at my thread on chrismartenson.com. Or PM me here, I'll at least read what you have to say.

Oh, and I feel your pain about IMDB. Totally unmoderated. What a circus that must be.

[frenat]

I have yet to see Jay ask ANY hostile or baiting questions. I HAVE seen you get more and more trollish the more often you post.

[echnaton]

The McDonald Observatory does routine laser ranging experiments to measure the distance of the moon. Do you think the astronomers that have operated this program for almost 30 years are being fooled by mirror like rocks? Rocks that happen to have the same optical properties as the reflectors that were built for the missions and are in the same place as the landing sites?