|
Post by gwiz on May 17, 2006 3:18:45 GMT -4
Do you have a link to this quote? Considering how often Dr Van Allen is used by the HBs as a "source", we might want to sticky it just to swiftly squash that line of argument... For those who want badly enough to believe Apollo was a hoax, that quote still isn't enough. I had one totally delusion HB respond to me by saying Dr. Van Allen must have had a gun to his head to make that comment. Van Allen's had a letter published in the latest Aviation Week. He quotes a speech he recently made at the NASM in which he suggests the ISS, including the bits awaiting launch, and the remaining Shuttles be sold to the Chinese, freeing up funds for a Mars sample return and other desirable science missions. This doesn't sound like a guy who toes the party line.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 17, 2006 6:07:35 GMT -4
Van Allen's had a letter published in the latest Aviation Week. He quotes a speech he recently made at the NASM in which he suggests the ISS, including the bits awaiting launch, and the remaining Shuttles be sold to the Chinese, freeing up funds for a Mars sample return and other desirable science missions. I like it! It divests us of a lot of useless equipment, and puts such a crushing financial burden on the Chinese space program that we won't have to worry about them going to the Moon for 40 years - at least! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 17, 2006 9:20:12 GMT -4
That's exactly the thing (Van Allen quote). He's not a big fan of manned space flight; why should he lie about it? Bob Park, the University of Maryland physicist who lambasted manned spaceflight in his book Voodoo Science, has also rejected the "hoax" claims.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 17, 2006 9:21:00 GMT -4
Oh, and I'd agree with Dr. Van Allen - except I'd spend the money on a manned Mars mission
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 17, 2006 9:43:06 GMT -4
The kind of science Dr. Van Allen wants to do is best done by robotic spacecraft. And since manned space travel is about an order of magnitude more expensive than unmanned, it's not hard to tell which side of that debate Van Allen is going to come down on. Fortunately not everyone wants to do the same kind of science as Van Allen wants, and some of that (e.g., planetary geology) is best done by humans in the field.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 18, 2006 1:14:30 GMT -4
It doesn't matter how confidently you apply, interpret, or extrapolate Van Allen's statements to try to show that he studied a radiation environment that would preclude Apollo missions. He has been asked specifically the question whether cislunar radiation means the Apollo astronauts would not have been able to succeed, and he has called such an idea "nonsense".From what I have read to date, Van Allen's documented research, articles and speeches asserted that manned space travel through the belts would not be possible without proper shielding - not impossible, but at least a very difficult task. I am interested in finding the sources mentioned in the link below.... Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets. "All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself. These findings were also published in Scientific American Magazine, March, 1959.
Two years later, Van Allen updated his report in Space World Magazine, December, 1961. In brief, he reported that everything he had found in 1959 was still valid.www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/moon/articles1.htmI have yet to see any conspiracy theorist deal with this statement. In fact, I have yet to see any conspiracy theorist who can produce a qualified astrophysicist who agrees with him. Before you go off trying to play scientist, consider that.I think if the sources above can be located and verified as genuine, the statement you mentioned from Van Allen could be discussed more thoroughly. If others here know of online sources for them, I would appreciate a post. I will try and locate them locally at libraries and other research facilities. "Malfunctioned" is inappropriate. The counter simply became saturated because it had been calibrated for the expected low levels of solar wind and cosmic rays. Has your stereo "malfunctioned" simply because you had the volume turned up so high that the sound was distorted?Minor issue of semantics, but the counters did indeed malfunction... Definition: malfunction - fail to function or function improperlySo yes, saturating Geiger counters (or any measurement device) past their ability to measure does cause them to function improperly. And speakers do malfunction when you overload them to the point of distortion. But again, it's not a major issue to the main discussion. FUD -- "extremely high" compared to the expected levels for which the instrument had been calibrated. Not necessarily "extremely high" for some other contemplated purpose.Yes, "extremely high" is subjective and not quantifiably defined in the post, but I said it simply to describe - in general terms - the reason for the malfunction. But you have to know the assumptions under and the purpose for which these gentlemen did their work. Were they talking about manned orbits inside the Van Allen belts? Were they talking about a certain spacecraft or launch vehicle? Were they talking about missions of specific durations?."Impractical" is generally a subjective term that depends on certain arbitrary or specific circumstances.The statements were in general reference to any type of manned space travel through (and therefore also within) the VA belts. No specific details were mentioned regarding duration of time within the belts, at least in the article as it exists online. So yes, again, "impractical" is used as a general, subjective description in the post. Keep in mind, Turbonium, that your typical error is one of interpretation. Since you decline to provide specific information on what these men studied, you can't assume their findings are applicable to your claims in the way you desire.My initial post was only a general introduction to the issue. Specific details, when I am able to provide them, will be added as the thread progresses. Your survey of the research seems to have stopped in 1960. You've cherry-picked your way into FUD by presenting only early nascent research in which we expect a certain degree of surprise and inaccuracy. You apparently haven't studied any research done in the past 45 years! Yes, later you ask whether there is any "new" research that "invalidates" these findings, but frankly that's your job. If your argument is simply to stop your survey once the results become less supportive of your conclusion, then that is its own rebuttal.I have indeed been studying research from that time up to current information. I have not yet found any such documentation, and so I asked those here if any does exist, and if so, to post sources for it. But that should also logically be your job - and sts60 has since noted his intention to research this issue (thanks, sts60). That is, if I am citing the original research which supports my position, a sound rebuttal would require subsequent documentation that falsifies it, or at least revises the data to the point that it invalidates the original documentation. All you've shown is that Van Allen's initial guess for the cislunar environment was wrong, so he sensor wasn't properly calibrated, and that some group of men studying an unknown problem under unknown constraints during the infancy of the space program concluded that there would be problems they weren't sure how to solve. You haven't made much of a case at all.As I mentioned, I've only provided an introductory post that was meant as a general outline. My case has obviously not been "made" as yet . I wrote... Why were there no animals used in test flights except within low Earth orbit?Because biological specimens don't tell you much. It's essential to know qualitatively what would happen to an organism in the space environment, but you don't get hard numbers from animals that would be useful in an engineering or mission-planning context, and you have the additional problem of recovering the animals intact for study after the mission. To borrow your terminology, studying biological specimens is impractical.Animal studies may or may not be "impractical", but the fact is that they were conducted by both the Soviets and Americans, and both before and since the Apollo program. That is certainly a testament to their considered value for human space flight. Living organisms, from simple to as advanced as dogs and chimps, do provide significant and critical information for deep space research, and for making future manned space flight possible. To make my point more precisely, I've listed a few examples of how animals were consistently used on missions to test the effects and assess the hazards on complex life forms before risking humans to repeat the missions... Sam the rhesus monkeyHe tested a Mercury couch and restraint harness that would be used to protect astronauts during high acceleration periods in manned Mercury flights. Case Study Example A: Animal test missions using high accelleration rockets were conducted before humans were subsequently sent into high accelleration rockets....Ham the chimpanzeeHis mission was to prove that live animals aboard a spacecraft could carry out their jobs during launch, weightlessness and reentry...The success of his Mercury capsule flight led directly to the launch of Alan Shepard on America's first human suborbital flight on May 5, 1961.www.spacetoday.org/Astronauts/Animals/Dogs.htmlHam rode a Redstone rocket in a suborbital space flight on Jan. 31, 1961, preceding by more than three months the suborbital flight of Comdr. Alan B. Shepard Jr. of the Navy.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E1DA1138F933A15752C0A965948260 Case Study Example B: Animal test missions for suborbital space flights were also conducted before humans were subsequently sent into suborbital space flights... Enos the chimpanzeeThe first non-human primate in orbit was the chimp Enos launched November 29, 1961, in a Mercury capsule in preparation for manned flight. Enos was said to be the first "living being" sent to orbit by the United States...After the success of the chimp's flight, John Glenn was launched on February 20, 1962, to become the first American to orbit Earth.Case Study Example C: Animal test missions for orbital space flights were once again conducted before humans were subsequently sent into orbital space flights...The lethal radiation existing beyond Earth orbit? - did NASA assume and believe that the radiation hazards and risks were known well enough to skip any animal tests - nary a single one - and thus could immediately begin manned missions? From the SpaceToday link above... Biosatellite 3, launched June 29, 1969, three weeks before the first men were to land on the Moon. A male pig-tailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) named Bonnie was the passenger set to orbit in Biosatellite 3 for a month. Unfortunately, Bonnie had to brought down, ill from loss of body fluids, after only 8.8 days. He died shortly after landing on July 7. Biosatellite 3 was flown to conduct intensive experiments to evaluate the effects of weightlessness with a pigtail monkey on board. The spacecraft deorbited after 9 days because the monkey's metabolic condition was deteriorating rapidly. The monkey expired 8 hours after the spacecraft recovery, presumably from a massive heart attack brought on by dehydration.nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1969-056A"Bonnie" died from illness only 9 days before Apollo 11 was launched, "presumably from a massive heart attack brought on by dehydration". If the Bio. 3 mission had continued as planned, it would have still been underway when Apollo 11 had ended! Why are animal studies testing the effects of weightlessness in Earth orbit being done at the same time as humans (supposedly) are being sent all the way to the Moon and back? This defies logic to me.... From what the studies indicate, there were animal test missions for every significant, advanced step in space flight preceding the human missions - before Apollo. Rocket launches, suborbital flights and orbital flights. Even an orbital test flight aborted only days before Apollo 11, "presumably" due to massive dehydration, and causing a fatal heart attack within hours of return. Why would NASA, in light of the problems still unsolved for orbital flights, suddenly think itself capable of abandoning small, incremental steps and therefore, confidently take a monumental leap in progress, sending men to walk on the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 18, 2006 2:17:58 GMT -4
I think if the sources above can be located and verified as genuine, the statement you mentioned from Van Allen could be discussed more thoroughly.
FUD, FUD, and more FUD. You pull out ancient sources trying to read something into early ambiguity and suspicion. Dr. Van Allen has directly repudiated the specific claim you make, and has done so within the past few years.
Deal with that please, not with some attempt to surmise what might be the case or was suspected to be the case 40 years ago. This is clearly a situation in which the relevant authority has spoken assertively and specifically on the precise question at hand. You are trying to evade that with indirection.
Minor issue of semantics, but the counters did indeed malfunction...
FUD. The counters simply were not calibrated to read variance in the proper range. What is wrong with saying just that?
The statements were in general reference to any type of manned space travel through (and therefore also within) the VA belts.
No. Travel through the Van Allen belts is a markedly different experience than sojourning in the Van Allen belts. You are pasting your own interpretation on what was said.
No specific details were mentioned regarding duration of time within the belts, at least in the article as it exists online.
Then I submit you are not able to discuss under what precise circumstances the estimates you cite are to be considered valid. Again, you're simply assuming that what you have read is applicable to what you claim.
So yes, again, "impractical" is used as a general, subjective description in the post.
I.e., FUD.
That is, if I am citing the original research which supports my position, a sound rebuttal would require subsequent documentation that falsifies it...
Hogwash. The proper rebuttal to a cherry-picked argument is to note the cherry-picking. A proponent is responsible for locating and discussion all pertinent evidence.
As I mentioned, I've only provided an introductory post that was meant as a general outline. My case has obviously not been "made" as yet.
If you recognize that your case is incomplete, then why are you so adamant in demanding a response thus far? You still bear a burden of proof, and part of that burden is to be aware of research since 1960 and to discuss it.
Animal studies may or may not be "impractical", but the fact is that they were conducted by both the Soviets and Americans, and both before and since the Apollo program. That is certainly a testament to their considered value for human space flight.
Fallacy of scope. In terms of radiation animals sent into space provide little quantitative or useful information. In terms of other biologically significant effects animals sent into space are indispensable. You're improperly aggregating different kinds of research to imply they are equivalent or comparable simply because they would use the same kinds of subjects.
It was not known in the 1950s whether a complex organism would function well in zero gravity and without other Earth stimuli. Questions such as circulatory function, equilibrium, sleep, cognition, and breathing were quite open, and could only be investigated by subjecting instrumented biological samples to that environment. In the case of microgravity, the only way to achieve that exposure was to put the animal in space. In the case of radiation, an animal need not be sent into space to measure the effects of radiation upon it.
Sam the rhesus monkey
...had nothing to do with radiation.
Ham the chimpanzee
...had nothing to do with radiation.
Enos the chimpanzee
...had nothing to do with radiation.
did NASA assume and believe that the radiation hazards and risks were known well enough to skip any animal tests...
No. Certain animal tests were conducted as part of the cover for Project Corona, however these were not the basis of NASA's attempts to understand radiation.
The effects of prolonged microgravity on an organism cannot be studied on Earth. We have no means of providing such an environment, and so we must place an organism in space in order to test any theory along those lines.
It is, however, possible to simulate or induce the effects of radiation on Earth. What occurs in the Van Allen belts can be duplicated on Earth sufficiently to assess its biological impact. One does not need to place an organism in space in order to study how radiation affects it, or to test methods and materials for mitigating those effects. One merely has to measure the radiation in space so that an equivalent exposure profile can be calibrated on Earth. That measurement is best done with unmanned equipment such as sounding rockets and satellites.
Data from that equipment can be used to establish exposure profiles on Earth using other radiation sources. This is far preferable to attempting to instrument a biological sample in space. Scientists would much rather work on subjects in their labs where possible than rely on remote sensing of subjects in space.
Why are animal studies testing the effects of weightlessness in Earth orbit being done at the same time as humans(supposedly) are being sent all the way to the Moon and back? This defies logic to me....
Begging the question. Since you are not an expert, what fails to appeal to your intuition has no evidentiary value.
If one acquires sufficient information on the behavior of an organism in microgravity to believe that two-week manned missions can be carried out with no appreciable danger, how would that imply that everything that can be known about microgravity is now known and that there is no need for further study?
You're citing continuing research and implying that this somehow means nothing conclusive or reliable could have been known beforehand. That is simply not how science works at all.
FUD.
Why would NASA, in light of the problems still unsolved for orbital flights, suddenly think itself capable of abandoning small, incremental steps and therefore, confidently take a monumental leap in progress, sending men to walk on the Moon?
You mistakenly assume that all facets of space exploration are largely equivalent in terms of what can be known, how it can be known, and what is required to test. We are talking about radiation specifically, not what other aspects of the space environment may be suited to biological sample testing. I gave you a nice explanation of this in my previous post. I'm disappointed you chose not to address it.
Further, you are bringing up examples of animals expiring from such mundane effects as dehydration that have little or nothing to do with radiation or with the intended program of study and more to do with a malfunctioning spacecraft or a poorly designed experiment. There is no reason to propose that Biosatellite spacecraft were engineered to the same degree of reliability and functionality as Apollo spacecraft. Pure unadulterated FUD.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 18, 2006 4:19:16 GMT -4
In terms of other biologically significant effects animals sent into space are indispensable.
But animals weren't sent into deep space prior to Apollo, correct? That is, the effect(s) on living organisms beyond Earth orbit was completely unknown.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 18, 2006 5:15:03 GMT -4
By the time the Apollo missions were launched, the data from Gemini VII were available: a demonstration that humans could function in space for two weeks.
There was also evidence from unmanned probes that the environment beyond Earth orbit was no more hazardous than that in Earth Orbit.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on May 18, 2006 6:18:06 GMT -4
In terms of other biologically significant effects animals sent into space are indispensable. But animals weren't sent into deep space prior to Apollo, correct? That is, the effect(s) on living organisms beyond Earth orbit was completely unknown. Not so. Zond 5 took several amimals around the Moon in Sept 1968. The history of animal spaceflight can be found here:- history.nasa.gov/animals.html
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 18, 2006 6:43:07 GMT -4
From what I have read to date, Van Allen's documented research, articles and speeches asserted that manned space travel through the belts would not be possible without proper shielding
And what is proper shielding? This is a point you seem consistently to miss over and over and over again. There are elevated radiation levels above low Earth orbit is the result of the satellite observations. The conclusion from this is that some way must be found to shield against this radiation if men are to be sent into those regions. That is all your links have said.
The key is that in order to develop proper shielding you need to know what type, energy and flux of radiation you have out there, and how long you plan to be swimming around in it. The appropriate shielding is utterly dependent on that information, and it can range from inches of heavy metal to centimeters of light metal and/or plastic. You have yet to provide any material evidence that says that the type of shielding actually employed on Apollo was not up to the task, or even acknowledge that you grasp the fundamental point about the relationship between radiation type, duration of exposure and shielding.
Van Allen's conclusion was delivered in a speech to the Academy of Science in 1959. He warned future space travelers they would have to race through these two zones on their way to outer planets.
Which is a perfectly sound suggestion. The simplest way to limit the effects of radiation is to reduce exposure time as far as possible.
"All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed" he said. Moreover, Van Allen advised they would have to be shielded with some extra layers of protection beyond that of the spacecraft itself.
And again we ask, how do you know this was not done. ‘The spacecraft itself’ refers to the structural elements needed for re-entry and pressure retention. That was the basic spacecraft design at the time of the report. As it stood, that would possibly be inadequate to shield against the radiation environment beyond low Earth orbit.
Once again, what evidence do you have that the type of shielding subsequently incorporated into spacecraft design for Apollo was not the ‘adequate means’ he was talking about a decade earlier?
I think if the sources above can be located and verified as genuine, the statement you mentioned from Van Allen could be discussed more thoroughly.
The statement from van Allen is already on the table. What basis do you have for refusing to address it now?
Yes, "extremely high" is subjective and not quantifiably defined in the post, but I said it simply to describe - in general terms - the reason for the malfunction.
But that is misleading. Radiation levels were higher than those for which the instrument was calibrated. That says it far more clearly, without any unnecessary hyperbole.
The statements were in general reference to any type of manned space travel through (and therefore also within) the VA belts. No specific details were mentioned regarding duration of time within the belts, at least in the article as it exists online. So yes, again, "impractical" is used as a general, subjective description in the post.
Then why try to distort it to fit to a specific mode of flight? In general, flight through or in the belts will require adequate shielding. That is not in dispute. Your claim is that the type of shielding used on Apollo was not up to the task. So far you have not even approached a reasonable argument for suggesting this. Adequate shielding is totally dependent on the mission mode. A flight through the belts will require less and different shielding from one that spends its entire time inside the belts.
An important note here is that shielding usually does not stop, and is not designed to stop, exposure to radiation entirely. Its purpose is to attenuate the radiation so the level of exposure is low enough to be acceptable for the flight duration. That means flight duration is a critical aspect of design.
Animal studies may or may not be "impractical", but the fact is that they were conducted by both the Soviets and Americans, and both before and since the Apollo program. That is certainly a testament to their considered value for human space flight.
But what aspects of human spaceflight are they being used to test?
Living organisms, from simple to as advanced as dogs and chimps, do provide significant and critical information for deep space research, and for making future manned space flight possible.
Not in dispute. However, your argument relates specifically to radiation. It is not necessary to send an animal into space to study radiation effects or shielding designs. That can be done on Earth.
Case Study Example A: Animal test missions using high accelleration rockets were conducted before humans were subsequently sent into high accelleration rockets....
But nothing to do with radiation.
Case Study Example B: Animal test missions for suborbital space flights were also conducted before humans were subsequently sent into suborbital space flights...
Because it was not known that humans could function in weightlessness. You can’t do that on Earth.
Case Study Example C: Animal test missions for orbital space flights were once again conducted before humans were subsequently sent into orbital space flights...
Again, to test the ability of the animal to function through launch and extended weightlessness.
- did NASA assume and believe that the radiation hazards and risks were known well enough to skip any animal tests - nary a single one - and thus could immediately begin manned missions?
As has already been explained, you do not need to send a live specimen to space to assess radiation effects. Unmanned orbital probes, of which there were quite a few (if memory serves I already included a list of probes prior to Apollo that measured radiation in space, many of them specifically in the lunar environment in an earlier post) had provided masses of data about the radiation in space. That data had been used to design appropriately shielded spacecraft. You don’t need to send a monkey into space to test the shielding.
And you still haven’t addressed Zond 5, which carried biological specimens round the Moon with no ill effects.
Why are animal studies testing the effects of weightlessness in Earth orbit being done at the same time as humans (supposedly) are being sent all the way to the Moon and back? This defies logic to me....
Why? No human had spent longer than 14 days in a weightless environment. NASA was planning orbiting space stations to be crewed for months on end. No information about the effect of that duration of weightlessness had been gathered.
You are oversimplifying things to the point where your argument falls apart. You are interpreting Apollo as the final culmination of spaceflight research, failing to take into account that it was only one aspect of the planned space presence. Other missions with other goals would have different requirements and require different preliminary data.
From what the studies indicate, there were animal test missions for every significant, advanced step in space flight preceding the human missions - before Apollo.
Rubbish. There were animal test flights to assess the ability of a living organism to operate in a weightless environment, and to assess the ability of a living organism to cope with the major stresses of a space mission: namely launch, weightlessness, re-entry and splashdown. Other major steps were conducted without animals. No animals were used in the development of orbital manoeuvring, new space capsules and flight hardware, rendezvous and docking, etc. You have identified the steps that did involve animal testing and assumed, with no logical basis, that these were the only critical steps and that somehow something else you see as critical not being tested with animals is suspect.
Why would NASA, in light of the problems still unsolved for orbital flights
You have no basis for assuming that there were problems still unsolved. The collection of data does not mean that there are problems.
suddenly think itself capable of abandoning small, incremental steps and therefore, confidently take a monumental leap in progress, sending men to walk on the Moon?
It was not a monumental leap. Project Mercury assessed a man’s ability to work in space, to pilot his capsule and to perform experiments. Project Gemini extended flight duration, developed navigation techniques, rendezvous methods, flight hardware such as computers and fuel cells, assessed docking in space, the ability to use one engine to manoeuvre a docked spacecraft stack, and worked on EVA. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo all began with unmanned test flights of the hardware. The leadup to the lunar landings was incremental and logical. It was not the monumental leap you suggest.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 18, 2006 6:46:21 GMT -4
But animals weren't sent into deep space prior to Apollo, correct? That is, the effect(s) on living organisms beyond Earth orbit was completely unknown.
Yes and no. No animals were sent by NASA to deep space (but see Zond 5). However, unmanned probes had already sent back data about the environment in deep space. Apart from radiation (which does not need a specimen sent into space to assess its effects) what was different about deep space compared to orbit? Answer: not a lot. You could get the physiological data you needed about functioning in space from an animal in orbit. Nothing else requires an animal to be sent into deep space.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 18, 2006 10:56:43 GMT -4
But animals weren't sent into deep space prior to Apollo, correct? That is, the effect(s) on living organisms beyond Earth orbit was completely unknown.
You're not listening. Disengage FUD Mode for a second and use your brain. You're so pressed to try to draw distinctions and parallels that you're not delving into why certain things were done and whether they had to be.
Not all "effects on living organisms" applicable to space are created equal in terms of what we can know about them through various means.
One of the big unknowns was microgravity effects. It wasn't known whether a complex organism could live and work in microgravity. Science didn't have any way to subject organisms to microgravity on Earth in order to study it, and so all we had prior to space flight was some educated guesses about things like circulation, equilibrium, and cognition.
The animal tests in space -- particularly the chimpanzee tests -- studied the basic effects of microgravity on the primate organism and confirmed that a human wouldn't lose equilibrium and spend all his time throwing up, that his heart wouldn't get confused and quit pumping, and that he could retain trained behavior. Space flight was then deemed safe enough for human volunteers in terms of microgravity.
That doesn't mean we were through studying the effects of microgravity on various organisms. In fact we're still not through doing that. We still send animals into space and study their behavior in microgravity. For example we sent orb-weaving spiders into space to see whether they could still build webs. (Answer: not very well.) We didn't have to do that in order to confirm that Mercury and Gemini astronauts would function as trained.
The gravity environment near Earth is fundamentally the same as the gravity environment near the moon or in deep space. Once we know that humans can function in that gravity environment, it doesn't matter whether the environment is nearby or far away. We have no reason to suspect that orb-weavers will be less confused by the microgravity near the moon than they were in Earth orbit.
Now radiation.
We know there is radiation in space. But unlike microgravity, we can generate radiation here on Earth. We can investigate its effects on organisms both simple and complex by exposing them to radiation of all types and intensities. In fact, we didn't even have to wait for NASA or anyone else to do studies on the effects of radiation on organisms because it had been part of science since the 1940s. There had already been accumulated a fairly large medical knowledge base about what different kinds of radiation in different amounts do to the human body. In short, radiation effects weren't nearly the unknown that microgravity effects were.
Again, we're by no means finished studying that effect either, but it's not directly linked to space. It doesn't have to be.
There's nothing "magic" about the radiation in the Van Allen belts or outside of it. It's just radiation. A 100 MeV proton zipping out of some laboratory emitter has exactly the same effect as a 100 MeV proton doing laps through the Van Allen belts. An x-ray is an x-ray. To the layman radiation may seem a strange, dangerous thing. But to the scientist and engineer it's a simple, straightforward natural phenomenon with properties such as flux, isotropy, and energy that are easily measured and easily applied to laboratory contexts.
What this means is that all we need to do is measure those properties at various points in space and develop predictve models for the other points in space. That can be done with something as simple as a Geiger counter duct-taped to a walkie-talkie. Dr. Van Allen's first attempt had the knob set wrong on the Geiger counter (facetiously speaking) but the basic principle is still the same: send something up into the sky and telemeter the data back down.
From that we can develop exposure profiles. And then we can duplicate those exposure profiles in the laboratory with emitters and measure the results with various specimens and materials with ease and accuracy. And in fact we may not have to, since we already had a fair model of biological radiation exposure effects and how to adjust that for different parameters such as type, exposure time, and exposure intensity. Health physics didn't begin with Apollo or Gemini or Mercury. Sad to say it began with Los Alamos, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
Bottom line: you don't need to send animals into the Van Allen belts, beyond them, or around the moon in order to be very knoweldgeable about how radiation in space will affect them. That's because we can remotely measure the radiation and duplicate the environment on Earth. We can't do that for other phenomena we know to exist in space such as microgravity.
Now the Biosatellites. The Biosatellite program was one of many programs undertaken in the 1960s to continue study of microgravity effects in biological organisms. Earlier efforts used very simple organisms such as mice and plants. They suffered scientifically from the fact that those missions were simply covers for Corona spy satellite launches. Not much attention was paid to the science, and many of the scientific payloads failed.
Biosatellite used more complex primates that were surgically instrumented to measure various biological parameters. You wire up two identical monkeys with all kinds of sensors and then you send one up in a spacecraft to see how those sensor readings change with gravity. Then back on Earth you try to discover causations for any variance.
Your discussion of Biosatellite suggests you think this was just shooting a bunch of monkeys into space to see if any random unknown effects from the space environment were manifest in them. That is most certainly not how science is done nor why Biosatellite was launched. It was to measure the effects from phenomena they already knew existed, and in what quantities. You detect and quantify phenomena using machines. If you subject an organism to those phenomena, it's to confirm whether some expected effect is there or not. That requires a precisely engineered experiment, not just a random dissection when the specimen lands.
You point to the deaths of two Biosatellite specimens as if this should have portended the presence of some hitherto unknown celestical force. Pure FUD. One of the monkeys died because his spaceship broke and he couldn't get a drink. One of the findings of the project was that they needed to be more careful building that kind of spacecraft. Another problem was the overtaxing of the specimen. The philosophy was, "We only have a few shots at this, so let's get all the data we can." You can only shove so many sensors into a monkey without compromising the organism.
But if I lock you in a tin box for a week without water, you'll definitely suffer dehydration. It won't matter whether that box is in low Earth orbit, lunar orbit, or on the White House lawn. Dehydration is not a natural effect of space flight. It's not as if the scientists didn't know why the monkeys were distressed and that it didn't have anything to do with some phenomenon they encountered in space. Give the scientists some credit.
Ironically some of the Biosatellite missions did in fact study radiation effects. Specifically they wanted to see whether microgravity affected an organism's response to radiation. But the ironic part is that they didn't use ambient space radiation; they used an artificial radiation source aboard the spacecraft. Why? Because only then do you get a proper experiment.
In order to have scientific validity, you need to subject your control and variable specimens to exactly the same radiation exposure profile. So while one monkey is exposed to radiation in microgravity, an identical monkey on the ground is exposed to exactly the same amount and kind of radiation in normal Earth gravity. Then you can examine the sensor readings on both monkeys and look for variance. Yes, it would be possible to use ambient radiation in space, measure it, and then try to duplicate that for the control, but it introduces other, possibly confounding, variables and needlessly complicates the experiment. For that particular experiment, ambient radiation was actually a nuisance. The only phenomenon Biosatellite tried to study was microgravity effects.
Now you've been around here long enough to know that we absolutely will not buy these vague, handwaving attempts at argument by comparison. It doesn't work for structural engineering, and it doesn't work for biology and space engineering. If you cannot wrap your mind around all the pertinent whys and wherefores of each individual instance you propose to compare or contrast, then you have nothing but FUD.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on May 18, 2006 11:24:23 GMT -4
Turbonium, think of it this way. I know that if I forcibly submerge a cat under the water in my bathtub it will drown in a few minutes. (I would never do this, by the way.) However, do I then have to take lots of cats to different points in the English Channel to find out if they will drown in the sea? No, because the fundamental point, that inhalation of water into the lungs causes asphyxiation, has already been demonstrated in my bathroom, and I already know that the English Channel is composed of water.
Or, for a more precise analogy, suppose I am planning to row across the channel, and in the interests of planning I want to find out if I can drink seawater. After all, if I can I don't need to plan the inclusion of bottled water on my trip. I would go to the beach, stand at the water's edge, scoop up some fluid and drink it. I would then go through all manner of facial contortions as the foulness of the salty liquid registered on my tastebuds. If I wanted more precise data I could consume a known amount and see if there were any measurable physiological effects.
Do I then need to go out on the Channel and sample the water from different points to see if it is drinkable? No, because other people have already sampled the water and found it has the same composition as that at the shoreline where I first conducted my experiment. I therefore know, without having to do anything else, that I would be unable to row across the English Channel without packing myself some fresh water to drink on the way, because the stuff I will be surrounded by on my trip will be just as undrinkable as the stuff I originally sampled on the shoreline.
This is the rationale behind the animal spaceflight experiments. They were conducted only to measure the things that cannot be assessed any other way. Radiation in space can be measured remotely and then reproduced in a lab. Microgravity cannot be, so the only way to assess the effects of microgravity is to go to space, and you only need to go as far as low Earth orbit to achieve a microgravity environment.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 18, 2006 14:17:14 GMT -4
The animal tests in space -- particularly the chimpanzee tests -- studied the basic effects of microgravity on the primate organism and confirmed that a human wouldn't lose equilibrium and spend all his time throwing up, that his heart wouldn't get confused and quit pumping, and that he could retain trained behavior. Space flight was then deemed safe enough for human volunteers in terms of microgravity.
That doesn't mean we were through studying the effects of microgravity on various organisms. In fact we're still not through doing that. We still send animals into space and study their behavior in microgravity.
We know there is radiation in space. But unlike microgravity, we can generate radiation here on Earth. We can investigate its effects on organisms both simple and complex by exposing them to radiation of all types and intensities. In fact, we didn't even have to wait for NASA or anyone else to do studies on the effects of radiation on organisms because it had been part of science since the 1940s. There had already been accumulated a fairly large medical knowledge base about what different kinds of radiation in different amounts do to the human body. In short, radiation effects weren't nearly the unknown that microgravity effects were.
Two points...
First, consider that microgravity and space radiation exist together in the deep space environment. We did not know, when Apollo's manned missions began, what the effects of space radiation were on living organisms in a weightless environment. Yes, we can - and have - simulated the radiation in the belts and deep space as detected through unmanned probes, etc. Types, dosages and durations can be simulated here on Earth. But we could not know what, if any, effects are produced by that radiation in a weightless, deep space environment. As you said, we simply cannot create that environment on Earth.
Second - unknown, or poorly known, deep space hazards. For example, microwave radiation was only detected in 1965. In pure form, it is non-ionizing and not detectable with the MG counters used by Apollo, and as mentioned earlier, by Van Allen. But it certainly is capable of being lethal to living organisms under certain conditions, as we are aware of today. If the levels of microwave radiation had been lethal in deep space, we would quite easily have not known about it during Apollo missions.
Completely unknown environmental hazards could exist in the VA belts and/or deep space, but were yet to be detected in 1969. How would it make sense to not find out if living organisms get sick or die in this environment before sending humans out?
It's not FUD - it's common sense to take great care and proper precautions when one is dealing with these unpredictable factors - which is what deep space presents us with, then and now.
|
|