|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 27, 2006 22:33:07 GMT -4
I'm baffled by this whole idea that not knowing the radiation hazard in cislunar space would have precluded travelling there. We know now that hurricanes and typhoons sweep the oceans every year, and we have satellites to study their strength and monitor their paths. How much information did Columbus, Vespuchi, Zheng or Magellen have when they crossed the ocean? Sure we know more now, but that didn't make it impossible then. Edited to add: PW ToSeeked me on this here.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Nov 28, 2006 19:17:56 GMT -4
I'm baffled by this whole idea that not knowing the radiation hazard in cislunar space would have precluded travelling there. We know now that hurricanes and typhoons sweep the oceans every year, and we have satellites to study their strength and monitor their paths. How much information did Columbus, Vespuchi, Zheng or Magellen have when they crossed the ocean? Sure we know more now, but that didn't make it impossible then. here. Absolutely! Even if it was a similar possibility that the early navigators faced of not returning, I would have gone; if I had been quite a bit older at the time, of course... In a heartbeat. (In that case- They may have needed to increase the number of 'fecal collection' bags though...) Besides- they could see where they were going, and could still see home- just like being a kid! Where's the harm? ;D Apollo-gies to those of a sensitive disposition!
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 4, 2006 6:12:25 GMT -4
ernist wrote: No dust on any of the Lunar footpads Kaysing claimed. How many minuets would it have taken Kaysing to find out that wasn't true. HC wrote: But according to the debunkers there would have been no dust on the LM landing pads. All the dust would have either blown away in clean Newtonian arcs (a la Clavius www.clavius.org/gravdust.html) or would have remained undisturbed (a la Phil www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#dust). It's not just the HB's who can't agree!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 4, 2006 6:40:23 GMT -4
True there is dust on the pad in this photo, but check when it was taken, that's the key/ It's after the crew had been walking about the area kicking up dust. That dust didn't land there during the landing, but well after. As to the dust issue, here's my little diagram that I'm adding to my Apollo 12 page.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 4, 2006 7:23:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 4, 2006 7:32:20 GMT -4
And the evidence for that would be?
If your HB friend cared to examine the TV and film from any Apollo mission he'd see that every single step the astronauts took kicked up a lot of dust. It wuld be less likely for the astronauts walking around near the LM not to have kicked at least some dust into the footpads.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 4, 2006 9:58:21 GMT -4
Jason if you read the post properly you will see that the HB is actually agreeing with jay. It was me questioning. www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm is a Moon hoax debunking site it says: Here is an Apollo 16 picture, NASA frame AS16-107-17442. Obviously, the moon dust can be plainly seen on the footpad. Now, it is remotely possible that the dust got there by being kicked onto to it by one of the astronauts, but since this is not the pad below the ladder, that's unlikely. Still, the fact that there is dust there at all is really a matter of luck as it does not necessarily follow, as Fox and Kaysing wrongly assume, that the "swirling dust" should settle on the footpad. As we have already shown, the descent engine of the LM is not nearly as powerful as Kaysing and the Moon Hoax advocates assume it is. Beyond that, the thrust does not behave in the airless vacuum the same way it does on Earth. As an example, the thrust in a vacuum is spherically shaped, as opposed to a tight, coherent tube on Earth. Further, without the air to help push around the the dust particles of the Lunar surface, there is very little distribution of the particles. So Kaysing's expectation of the dust swirling around the LM is just wrong, only a small amount of dust in the direct path of the thruster blast would be affected.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 4, 2006 10:22:54 GMT -4
Er, Phil Plait doesn't say that all the dust would remain undisturbed, just the dust that isn't directly swept by the exhaust. In other words, no disageement.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 4, 2006 10:43:53 GMT -4
I was wondering why this site: www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm which is a moon hoax debunking site reckons the dust was not kicked there as jay and others say it was. This is a disagreement between AB's. To set the record straight it looks obvious to me that it was kicked there. Ive always found lunaranomalies.com's who mourns for Apollo section an excellent resource untill this.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 4, 2006 10:54:23 GMT -4
I was wondering why this site: www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm which is a moon hoax debunking site reckons the dust was not kicked there as jay and others say it was. This is a disagreement between AB's. Well, they go off the rails right here: The astronauts walked all around the LM to document its post-landing condition, and they also walked into the two regions between the front leg and the side legs to unload equipment that was mounted on the sides of the LM.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 4, 2006 11:42:20 GMT -4
I was wondering why this site: www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon2.htm which is a moon hoax debunking site reckons the dust was not kicked there as jay and others say it was. This is a disagreement between AB's. Well, they go off the rails right here: The astronauts walked all around the LM to document its post-landing condition, and they also walked into the two regions between the front leg and the side legs to unload equipment that was mounted on the sides of the LM. I laughed at the ladder bit. Ah i think Ive worked it out. Although the site debunks moon hoax theories it claims NASA covered up what they found there (didnt read that bit). Its a Richard C. Hoagland job. Still most of the Apollo info is cool.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 4, 2006 17:11:07 GMT -4
Its a Richard C. Hoagland job.
Nice to see you spotted this by yourself. Yeah it's a TEM site, they do a good job on the Apollo Hoax, but they still get a few things wrong.
The photo in question was taken on EVA-2 of Apollo 16, well after they had deployed the rover and used it around the LM (note they deployed the Rover on EVA-1, not 2). Dust from the LRV being driven about, or by the crew moving about the LM to deploy either the rover of the MESA, or just to check out the LM could easily account for the dust in the photo.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Dec 4, 2006 20:03:30 GMT -4
|
|