|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 12:28:31 GMT -4
No-one is denying the luck element in Apollo, but they weren't just shooting people off into space and hoping for the best. They had contingencies just in case to reduce the damage done by solar events.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 5, 2007 12:29:04 GMT -4
He calls it luck, others call it playing the odds. NASA determined that the background lunar and space environment were OK radiation-wise for short duration missions, and that the odds of a solar eruption occurring within the window of a two week mission were small enough to justify the risk, especially given that going to the moon was something new and the astronauts were mostly test pilots who were used to risking their lives in the course of their duties. Not to mention that they were in a race with the Soviet Union.
Also I sense that Lane is looking at it with a 21st Century sensibility, which is much more risk averse, and with one eye on the fact that it is no longer new and exploratory. NASA are now looking at establishing a base on the moon meaning that ongoing radiation protection is a must.
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:42:25 GMT -4
No-one is denying the luck element in Apollo, but they weren't just shooting people off into space and hoping for the best. They had contingencies just in case to reduce the damage done by solar events. That's fascinating, what were they ?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:43:57 GMT -4
No-one is denying the luck element in Apollo, but they weren't just shooting people off into space and hoping for the best. They had contingencies just in case to reduce the damage done by solar events. That's fascinating, what were they ? Haven't you read this thread?
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:44:57 GMT -4
He calls it luck, others call it playing the odds. NASA determined that the background lunar and space environment were OK radiation-wise for short duration missions, and that the odds of a solar eruption occurring within the window of a two week mission were small enough to justify the risk, especially given that going to the moon was something new and the astronauts were mostly test pilots who were used to risking their lives in the course of their duties. Not to mention that they were in a race with the Soviet Union. Also I sense that Lane is looking at it with a 21st Century sensibility, which is much more risk averse, and with one eye on the fact that it is no longer new and exploratory. NASA are now looking at establishing a base on the moon meaning that ongoing radiation protection is a must. Mr Lane makes it clear by his language he is amazed they did it and he is currently working for NASA. He makes it clear that the moon is a massively hazardous enviroment.
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:45:51 GMT -4
That's fascinating, what were they ? Haven't you read this thread? No I haven't and have no intention of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:47:43 GMT -4
Haven't you read this thread? No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. This says a lot about your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 12:49:25 GMT -4
Grieg, I am not about to restate what has already been said on this thread. The answer to your question is discussed elsewhere on this thread. Go and find it. If you're not willing to put in the effort to read a thread don't just tack your comment on the end of it. Start a new one.
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:50:18 GMT -4
No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. This says a lot about your arguments. Please back up your argument from a reliable source.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:58:23 GMT -4
This says a lot about your arguments. Please back up your argument from a reliable source. The source is you. You asked a question of which the answer of which is contained in previous posts of the thread you posted to. When I indicated this to you, you replied, "No I haven't (read the thread) and have no intention of doing so." Indicating that you apparently don't have the intellectual curiosity to study a topic before you comment on it. If all of your arguments are sourced in this sort of ignorance, I'm afraid you won't have a good time here.
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 13:05:23 GMT -4
Please back up your argument from a reliable source. The source is you. You asked a question of which the answer of which is contained in previous posts of the thread you posted to. When I indicated this to you, you replied, "No I haven't (read the thread) and have no intention of doing so." Indicating that you apparently don't have the intellectual curiosity to study a topic before you comment on it. If all of your arguments are sourced in this sort of ignorance, I'm afraid you won't have a good time here. So you can't provide a valid source to back up your argument, fine. I didn't think you would If you belueve I am going to wade through screeds of nonsense, then you are quite wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 13:06:59 GMT -4
You asked a question, the answer is in this thread and I am NOT going to repeat it. If you are not willing to put in the effort to find it even after being told it is there I am not willing to discuss the matter further with you.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 5, 2007 13:07:50 GMT -4
No-one is denying the luck element in Apollo, but they weren't just shooting people off into space and hoping for the best. They had contingencies just in case to reduce the damage done by solar events. That's fascinating, what were they ? Haven't you read this thread? No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. Very interesting. You imply Apollo was faked due to radiation hazards, yet you don't even know what Apollo's countermeasures were to mitigate the hazzard. When directed to a source explaining what the contingencies where, you indicate you have no intention of reading it. If this is indicative of how you research all your topics, this is going to be a real turkey shoot.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 5, 2007 13:08:02 GMT -4
No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. No, we wouldn't expect a hoax believer to put a bit of effort into doing research. Thanks for confirming your laziness.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 13:09:16 GMT -4
The source is you. You asked a question of which the answer of which is contained in previous posts of the thread you posted to. When I indicated this to you, you replied, "No I haven't (read the thread) and have no intention of doing so." Indicating that you apparently don't have the intellectual curiosity to study a topic before you comment on it. If all of your arguments are sourced in this sort of ignorance, I'm afraid you won't have a good time here. So you can't provide a valid source to back up your argument, fine. I didn't think you would If you belueve I am going to wade through screeds of nonsense, then you are quite wrong. This says a lot about your arguments.
|
|