|
Post by margamatix on Aug 12, 2005 17:13:48 GMT -4
Here's my design for the lunar craft
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Aug 12, 2005 17:21:11 GMT -4
Here's my design for the lunar craft Now I understand your abysmal ignorance about Apollo spacecraft design and performance. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 12, 2005 17:25:14 GMT -4
Can I just point out that this is the internet and nobody asked you to decide what is acceptable and not?
No, you may not. If you expect your statements to carry any more weight than those of a predisposed layman, then you must meet a higher standard than that of the predisposed layman.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 12, 2005 17:27:25 GMT -4
Here's my design for the lunar craft
Justify your use of so much lead.
Specifically, describe quantitatively the environment that requires it. And specifically, describe why lead is the best substance to use to mitigate the effects of that enviroment.
If you fancy yourself a space engineer, you had better be prepared to measure up. I'm holding you to the same standards to which I have held the Apollo designs.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Aug 12, 2005 17:31:51 GMT -4
I *am* a layman, but I believed in it for over 30 years so I can hardly be described as "predisposed". In fact, belief in the moon landings is the predisposition.
I do enjoy your comments Jay, but nobody forces you either to read my postings or reply to them. You could ignore me if you wanted.
My comments are here for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 12, 2005 17:55:46 GMT -4
I *am* a layman
Then what qualifies you to design a spacecraft? What qualifies you to criticize another person's spacecraft design?
In fact, belief in the moon landings is the predisposition.
Not in your case. As I said, all conspiracists make the same claim to have been previously believers in Apollo, but then to have been dragged to the opposite viewpoint by the strength of the evidence. I have already explained why I don't find that argument credible, either in the general case or in your case.
I do enjoy your comments Jay, but nobody forces you either to read my postings or reply to them.
And no one forces you to make them.
You could ignore me if you wanted.
I choose not to. Further, you yourself could keep silent if you wanted to. If you don't want your opinions exposed to public examination for fear of criticism, then don't render them. Free speech is funny that way. It guarantees you the right to say what you want, but it does not guarantee a favorable reception.
My comments are here for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
I am reading them and judging them. Why is it improper for me to express my judgment? If you are so open to judgment, why do you complain when it is unfavorable? It seems that approval is what you seek -- not judgment.
As long and insofar as you allege your opinions to be objectively justified, you will engender criticism when they appear to be otherwise. That is the way of the world.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 12, 2005 18:06:00 GMT -4
My comments are here for anyone to read and judge for themselves. They are and we have. Your comments have been found to be notably lacking a rational basis. Is that really the way you want to live your life?
|
|
|
Post by hubcapdave69 on Aug 12, 2005 19:00:51 GMT -4
Here's my design for the lunar craft You'd go to the moon in a house made of lead?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 12, 2005 23:08:15 GMT -4
Because that's what Russia say would happen if you sent a man to the moon.
Bulls**t. The Russians - the engineers, scientists, and political leaders - said nothing of the sort when they were attempting to do it in the '60s, and they say nothing of the sort now. Your claim is false.
Well, it will be (different from the Apollo spacecraft) if it goes anywhere near the moon.
No. You are begging the question again. You have never provided even the tiniest bit of evidence to back up your opinion that the Apollo spacecraft was inadequate to its task.
JayUtah: Be specific; I do not accept vague handwaving. margamatix: Can I just point out that this is the internet and nobody asked you to decide what is acceptable and not?
Any person can make any claim on the Internet. That does not mean all claims are equally valid, or even equally worthy of serious consideration. Jay's claims about Apollo are backed up by evidence and directly relevant engineering experience. Yours aren't backed up by anything except repetition.
My comments are here for anyone to read and judge for themselves.
Yes. Anyone can see that you keep repeating yourself; that you never back up any of your technical claims; and that every one of your technical claims is based on sheer ignorance of the relevant scientific and engineering principles.
Let me make myself perfectly clear: your "it wouldn't work" mantra is meaningless, because it is nothing more than begging the question. I don't care how many times you repeat it in how many different variations. You can be expect to be challenged every time you make such an empty claim on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 12, 2005 23:13:11 GMT -4
Here's my design for the lunar craft Yeah, you're right. With that design anyone inside would be dead. (assuming it got off the ground) Perhaps instead of just listening to your HB authors, who wouldn't know a physics book if someone beat them to death with it, you should research the composition of the Van Allen Belts for yourself, then take a gander at something called Bremsstrahlung radiation (braking radiation.) I'll give you a clue to start out, It has something to do with high energy electrons and dense metals. If you read up on these two things you'll soon discover why lead is the exact WRONG type of shielding in the VA Belts and would likely kill anyone being "shielded" by it. Also, as far as I know, the Soyuz and Apollo capsules aren't all that different in construction techniques as far as what they used as shielding, and the Soyuz used today are not that far along from the design of the 1960's ones. The claim that the Russian's "knew it was impossible" etc are balloney. The HB's know that few people in the West have studied the Russian space program because it really only opened up about its lunar attempts in the 1990's so they think they can get away with it. They can't. If you do the research and look at the Zond vehicles and the Russian Lander, they aren't that dissimilar to the Apollo ones. If the Russians were so scared of radiation, why would they use the same ideas as the US did? The answer is simple, after Zond 5 in 1968, they knew it not a danger that couldn't be protected against. (before that they were pretty sure of it.) At least 2 of the Gemini entered the VA Belts and stayed in them for quite some time (longer than any of the Apollo missions did if I recall right.) The IIS passes through the lower parts of the VA Belts all the time, as does the space shuttle on occasion, are all of these things Hoaxes as well? Even Dr Van Allen who is the world's expert on the Belts says that the Hoax Author's claims are baloney. So, who are you going to believe? A discredited cameraman with an axe to grind, or the world's most renound space radiation scientist who has studied the belts, which bear his name, for 60 years?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 12, 2005 23:21:08 GMT -4
By the way, as a follow on, the paper that the HB Authors get their "6 foot of lead" from is actually a NASA pper about the possiblity of Generation ships that are capable of Interstellar travel. In other words they look at a figure that was used to discuss shielding people for their entire lives of 70-90 years in a ship that was being affected by Cosmic Radiation and Gamma Ray Bursts, and then tried to apply it to a ship that carried people through an area of high energy particles for just a few hours. That's just comparing apples and screwdrivers.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2005 0:20:44 GMT -4
By the way, as a follow on, the paper that the HB Authors get their "6 foot of lead" from is actually a NASA pper about the possiblity of Generation ships that are capable of Interstellar travel.
Mauldin's Prospects for Interstellar Travel is a privately published book, not a NASA paper. Mauldin at one point contributed to NASA research; that's where R. Rene got the notion that he was a "NASA physicist". Mauldin doesn't mention lead. Rene just assumed that by "shielding" Mauldin must have meant lead because "obviously" that's what you use to shield against radiation.
In any case, the rest of your post is absolutely correct. A generation ship must attenuate radiation down to a level consistent with background radiation on Earth or less. For brief missions you can attenuate it less. And an interstellar ship must travel outside the heliopause, where galactic cosmic radiation is much higher.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 13, 2005 2:34:32 GMT -4
Thank's for the correction there Jay.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Aug 18, 2005 1:00:25 GMT -4
Using lead to shield against particle radiation is not so bright. Heavy metals do not attenuate or moderate high speed neutrons or protons well at all, they mostly scatter them. Water, oil, polyurethane and other hydrogenous materials do a much better job. Add some borated poly to capture the neutrons and you have a very nice shield indeed. Water and hydrogen may come in handy on a voyage. While lead is a good gamma shield, water in sufficient quantities to shield particle radiation will take care of the gammas too.
So does margamatix have any good reasons to use so much lead?
Ranb
|
|
|
Post by Sticks on Aug 18, 2005 1:38:59 GMT -4
So what is the main radiation component of the van Allen belt and galactic cosmic radiation? Would it be gamma, as I suspect the other 2 forms of radiation alpha and beta would be stopped by the outer skin of the space craft. Alpha is stopped by skin. Would an artificial magnetic shield work, assuming it was powered by a nuclear power plant. (Vital for going to Mars, not that congress will allow funding for that one )
|
|