|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 15:23:55 GMT -4
It's also interesting that in discussing the "hoax", a lot of HBs want to take evidence for Apollo off the table at the start:
It's also worth pointing out that a large part of Apollo was Americans bumming about their wonderful technology. As the isssue in question is whether NASA landed men on the moon, any claims for that technology are inadmissable because it is from one of the defendants.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 5, 2007 15:44:44 GMT -4
I do, he said solar events, not flares. Solar events are continuous.
No. "Events" in this context refers to solar particle events (SPEs). If you had spent any time studying this topic you would know that. Even 3onthetree and turbonium, who think Apollo was faked, understand this.
Also Mr Lane reckons the moon is sufficiently hostile without making reference to solar flares
Normal radiation is not a significant hazard for short stays on the Moon. The principal hazard is charged particles, in particular protons above 30MeV in energy, from solar particle events.
For long-duration stays, the electrostatic shield would help by reducing the average exposure to (primarily) galactic cosmic radiation.
This is clear in the context of the article.
and I still don't know what the contingencies were.
They've been discussed in this thread. But if you can't be bothered to read it, the basic approach was to basically orient the SM engine bell towards the Sun. The materials in the SM and CM would have reduced the radiation exposure to a level acceptable for a one-time dose. This would have required abandonment of any lunar activities or spacewalks; the visual indication of a dangerous flare would require them to return promptly to the CSM. But there was enough time to do this before arrival of the dangerous particle front.
It's also worth pointing out that a large part of Apollo was Americans bumming about their wonderful technology.
While no doubt there were propagandistic elements to Apollo - as with any massive undertaking by any nation - there was also a great wealth of discovery shared with all nations. In any case, this has nothing to do with the authenticity of Apollo.
As the isssue in question is whether NASA landed men on the moon, any claims for that technology are inadmissable because it is from one of the defendants.
No. The record of the technology has to be examined - in an informed manner - to evaluate the technology. Moreover, much of the technological, managerial, and scientific work done during Apollo is used every day by spacefaring nations around the world, precisely because it proved useful and accurate - including but not limited to space environment data.
The US government actually paid for American TV programmes to be broadcast worldwide at massive discounts that gave a positive view of American society. Trailer parks, people sleeping rough and work weren't included.
A government attempting to paint a prettified picture of life in its country? How unprecedented! In any case, this has nothing to do with the question of whether Apollo actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 5, 2007 15:54:28 GMT -4
greig do you REALLY think that the ONLY confirmation of the science involved in the moon landings comes from the US?
Don't you think other scientists in other nations are able to discern if the science and technology of NASA is correct?
Information from the defendant certainly IS permissible if it can be verified by a third party.
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 16:02:14 GMT -4
greig do you REALLY think that the ONLY confirmation of the science involved in the moon landings comes from the US? Don't you think other scientists in other nations are able to discern if the science and technology of NASA is correct? Information from the defendant certainly IS permissible if it can be verified by a third party. You are going to have to point me at information which suggests they have done the research themselves. There is no reason for them to have done it. Plus any suggestion of a hoax would be instant global career death and I mean instant.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Jan 5, 2007 16:09:26 GMT -4
If I can't get on the Disinformationeers payroll, I'll settle for being a Non-Scientist being paid by NASA to publish Nonscience..
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 5, 2007 16:16:48 GMT -4
Um....so when the ESA's SMART-1, or the Japanese Hiten reached lunar orbit, why didn't they mysteriously explode from all the stuff NASA had been hiding from the rest of the world? How is it that a half-dozen nations are able to put satellites up without asking NASA to do it for them? Do you really think space exploration is a private playground?
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 16:55:29 GMT -4
Um....so when the ESA's SMART-1, or the Japanese Hiten reached lunar orbit, why didn't they mysteriously explode from all the stuff NASA had been hiding from the rest of the world? How is it that a half-dozen nations are able to put satellites up without asking NASA to do it for them? Do you really think space exploration is a private playground? Manned space exploration beyond earth orbit s a private playground .
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 5, 2007 16:59:26 GMT -4
Only because the Russian's N-1 rocket kept exploding and the other big powers haven't gotten there yet.
But that doesn't say anything about the multiple countries and companies that have made, own and operate satellites in and past the Van Allen belts. They are all certainly aware of what the radiation environment is like because they work with it everyday. If it differed from what NASA said, why wouldn't they say something?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 5, 2007 17:08:01 GMT -4
Manned space exploration beyond earth orbit s a private playground . But you don't need to send a crew beyond low earth orbit to understand the environment, and other nations have sent probes that far and even more will.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 5, 2007 22:19:33 GMT -4
Manned space exploration beyond earth orbit s a private playground .
Just because only Americans have been beyond low Earth orbit so far doesn't mean other nations won't do it eventually. The Chinese in particular are working at a measured pace towards manned lunar exploration.
In any case, multiple nations and agencies have operated lunar and deep-space missions. Measurement of the space environment around the Earth, the Moon, and in interplanetary space is not controlled by the U.S. The Rusian, Japanese, and European space agencies in particular would laugh at such a notion.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 6, 2007 1:14:06 GMT -4
I was wondering when the "beyond Earth orbit" thing was going to sneak in. So there is some big secret known only to a select few at NASA, that only affects People that are Beyond Earth Orbit, eh? And yet, somehow, the rest of space science, astrophysics, et al is seamlessly knit around this void; so seamless that no-one ever suspects that anything is being hidden.
For a science-educated lecturer someone seems to be regurgitating a lot of the stock HB claims...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jan 6, 2007 8:10:47 GMT -4
Unfortunately, the preciseness of predictions of space weather effects is still poor. Solar energetic transients, i.e. flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs), occur rather spontaneously, and we have not yet identified unique signatures that would indicate an imminent explosion and its probable onset time, location, and strength. The underlying physics is not yet sufficiently well understood. Solar energetic particles, accelerated to near-relativistic energies during major solar storms arrive at the Earth’s orbit within minutes (see, e.g. Garcia, 2004) and may, among other things, severely endanger astronauts on the way to the Moon or Mars. But we have no appropriate warning tool yet!www.ann-geophys.net/23/1033/2005/angeo-23-1033-2005.pdfWhat? Don't they know about the SPAN? We had this problem licked back in the 60's, for Pete's sake! For practical applications as a prediction tool Eq. (2) based on the expansion speed, was found to work rather successfully, as was confirmed for several events that occurred after our analysis interval, i.e. 15 after April 2001. However, there is still an embarrassing number of cases of complete failure: missing alarms and false alarms. The 91 uniquely associated event pairs were selected with great care, in order to lead us to safe conclusions and to provide a sound prediction tool. However, our complete list of 304 entries includes another 124 “possibly associated” shock/ICME events, i.e. cases of CMEs where an ICME signature could not be ruled out, and the other way round. Well, that clinches it. Botching it up 124 times out of 428 would leave me red-faced, too! Let's put an end to their embarassment, pronto. Who wants to pass along the good news and fill 'em in about SPAN? While we're at it, let's spread some other great news from the RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION.... Although early conservative estimates indicated that radiation would be a major problem, observations from the ground and from spacecraft have demonstrated that the space radiation hazard is one of the lesser engineering problems to be overcome in spacecraft design and mission planning. www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm It was all....just....so much easier back in 1969.....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jan 6, 2007 8:32:28 GMT -4
I believe that I have found the major reason why SPAN was able to successfully predict CME's decades ago, to such a high degree, that we can only dream of getting even half of those precise results today!
Time of occurrence, area, and location of the flare are determined by SPAN observers and are teletyped to the Mission Control Center where the data are incorporated into the estimate of the particle event size.
I think they went back to the "singing telegram" soon after the Apollo missions ended. Less effective warning system, I'll grant you. But loads more fun...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 6, 2007 11:17:24 GMT -4
www.ann-geophys.net/23/1033/2005/angeo-23-1033-2005.pdfWhat? Don't they know about the SPAN? We had this problem licked back in the 60's, for Pete's sake!So what exactly do you think this represents? Evolving understanding of the Sun-Earth-Moon system over more than half a decade? Or proof that Apollo was faked? If the latter, have you asked any of the authors if they subscribe to this view? I believe that I have found the major reason why SPAN was able to successfully predict CME's decades agoCMEs were discovered after the first few Apollo landings.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 6, 2007 11:25:33 GMT -4
Makes me wonder why we did any science on the Apollo missions. I mean, what was all that stuff with geologist's hammers and seismic detectors and all that rot? How could we have possibly sent a mission there unless we knew everything about the Moon already?
Durn. I just realized my trip to Paris must have been a hoax. I didn't have a number for the hotel, I didn't learn to speak French, I wasn't even sure if I could use my ATM card (and I didn't carry any Euros with me). With a lack of information like that, I must not have actually gone.....
|
|