|
Post by gillianren on Mar 9, 2007 21:52:49 GMT -4
Oh, yeah? Well, I--I--
I got nothing. (No, that's not true; I've been to JPL a whole crapload of times and have some interesting stories about it, but nothing that's worth much in oneupsmanship.)
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 11, 2007 22:46:45 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by jupiter2 on Mar 12, 2007 20:27:45 GMT -4
Grand Lunar,
Sorry about the quote problem and thanks for the help.- looks like I got that solved.
As for photos, how do you copy a photo into a post?. Or a link , hyperlink, ftp, insert image, etc ? I tried working with the little boxes in the reply section in the same row as the Quote box but cannot even get a link to work, nevermind a complete photo.
Thanks if you can help...
I have some moonrock photos and some AS photos Id like to present and discuss .
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 12, 2007 21:52:19 GMT -4
I have some moonrock photos and some AS photos Id like to present and discuss .
Before presenting new material, kindly deal with our responses to the crap you've already posted.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 12, 2007 22:33:35 GMT -4
I agree. You need to address the refutations of your existing claims, not simply skip on to a new topic.
|
|
|
Post by d0gshead on Mar 19, 2007 22:31:12 GMT -4
Oh, yeah? Well, I--I-- I got nothing. (No, that's not true; I've been to JPL a whole crapload of times and have some interesting stories about it, but nothing that's worth much in oneupsmanship.) I got nuthin either G, but I read in Dana Sobels "The Planets" (a fine read BTW) the ultimate lunar sample story: Her (Dana Sobel) best freind was going out with NASA employee who had access to the samples, and who was besotted with her to such a degree that he stole some lunar dust. Sobel demands a look at the sample only to be told by the sheepish friend that she had EATEN IT! I thought that hilarious - something I would do!
|
|
|
Post by jupiter2 on Apr 13, 2007 20:52:54 GMT -4
I want to apologize to all NASA apologists on the subject of moonrocks. For the last month I have learned so much about these moon rocks. Terms like breccia, regolith, fusion crust are now familiar to me and I must admit I was wrong.
I do now believe these rocks do exist and they came from the moon. That they were gathered by men and not some massive robotic vechicle built and sent up in the years following the Program that has the ability to lift large rocks,... ahh but there I go again... Apollo 11 crew brought back some of these samples....
Right now I am in the middle of a massive cognitive dissonance headache.
Just letting you know however that I really did want to believe that we did land on the moon, and that unlike the stereotypical goal post shifter I am willing to admit when I am wrong.
I repeat- there is NO WAY that these are not Moon Rocks.
They piece de resistance for me was the complete lack of erosion rings or age rings like a tree has inside these rocks and the BB like peppering of the outside from rapid cooling. Or the tiny pock marks from micrometeorite hits that were completely consistent with a planetary body that has no atmosphere to prevent it.. Or the lack of any entry burn that proves they cannot even be lunar meteorites.
I am grateful for the work to all geological scientists and their families who have seen and worked on the study of these magnificent specimens.
On the subject of moonrocks, I officially stand corrected.
Now- I hope for NASA get a manned vechicle to enter the Van Allen Belt or even higher.for study of the effects on a living organism like man so my mind can rest on the knowledge that we really can survive massive doses of gamma rays and x-rays and solar flares and I can rest assured that deep space flight for humans is not impossible.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 13, 2007 21:15:29 GMT -4
Now- I hope for NASA get a manned vechicle to enter the Van Allen Belt or even higher.for study of the effects on a living organism like man so my mind can rest on the knowledge that we really can survive massive doses of gamma rays and x-rays and solar flares and I can rest assured that deep space flight for humans is not impossible. You mean like was done in Project Gemini performing research prior to Apollo so they knew what they were getting into and by the shuttle and ISS when they pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly? Also the radiation conditions of near earth space (which do not include "massive doses of gamma rays and x-rays") are well publicized (anyone who makes satellites has to know them) as are the effects of radiation on human biology so there is no need for human flight into the VABs to know what will happen. Also calling us "NASA apologists" is impolite, and rather foolish considering that your post mostly consisted of you telling us how you are coming to believe our position on Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 13, 2007 21:27:55 GMT -4
On the subject of moonrocks, I officially stand corrected.
That took a lot of guts and integrity. Thanks for having the courage to post it.
...really can survive massive doses of gamma rays and x-rays...
There are no concentrations of gamma rays or x-rays in the Van Allen belts, nor do the belts stop such things. You are no more exposed to gamma and x-ray radiation oustide the Van Allen belts than you are in Earth orbit.
...and solar flares...
That's more complicated. For short Apollo missions (ca. 2 weeks) the chances of a dangerous solar flare were quite small. Flares happen all the time, but almost all of them are very mild. Even a space suit provides a good deal of protection. The ones that might be dangerous for astronauts happen only once every year or two, depending on the solar cycle. Except for that one autumn in (when was it?) 2004 when we had two X-class (the solar equivalent of Hurricane Katrina) events about a month apart.
So for very short, infrequent missions the best thing to do is not worry about it. If it happens you might be in trouble, but it's just not very likely to happen. But for longer missions (such as a lunar base or a mission to Mars) we need to have shielding we can count on, because you probably will suffer a significant flare. And that's why NASA today is worried about shielding against solar flares.
We orbit satellites in the Van Allen belts all the time. GPS satellites, some communication satellites. In fact, comm satellites have to go through them in order to get out to geostationary orbit, although we plot the transfer orbits to avoid as much as we can. And by we I mean the private spacefaring industry. Electronics are sensitive to radiation too, and we have to protect them so they don't poop out.
The point is that we know quite well what the Van Allen belt environment is like. We have to in order to do all the boring things in space that don't capture headines, but make things like DirecTV and OnStar work. We have very detailed, predictive mathematical models based on the data we've accumulated over decades of all kinds of spacefaring in and around the belts.
And by the same token we know what the human body can tolerate in terms of amounts and kinds of radiation. And when you take astrophysics and health physics and put them together, it's almost as easy as comparing two numbers to see whether there's a real danger.
And on Gemini 9 and Gemini 10 the astronauts flew substantially into the Van Allen belts; we know people in spacecraft will be okay. The ISS dips into the lower part of it a few times every day.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 13, 2007 23:05:10 GMT -4
Also calling us "NASA apologists" is impolite, and rather foolish...
I took it in what I think was the spirit in which it was offered, which was simply as a label with no special value judgment. Jupiter2 has made a significant overture, and I think he deserves credit for it.
I don't consider myself a NASA apologist in the sense that I defend NASA. I defend the Apollo program, at least as far as its authenticity is concerned. I make this distinction because it's important: my defense is based on my understanding of historical fact and technical achievement, not on political or governmental issues. I reserve the right to criticize NASA or any other aspect of government if I believe the facts warrant it.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 13, 2007 23:27:42 GMT -4
Just letting you know however that I really did want to believe that we did land on the moon, and that unlike the stereotypical goal post shifter I am willing to admit when I am wrong. Dude, you rock. ;D . That's two things we rarely see in a "true believer:" Taking the effort to learn the subject, realizing when you're wrong, and admitting it publically. Three things. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!) Fred
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 13, 2007 23:36:37 GMT -4
That's [three] things we rarely see in a "true believer:" Taking the effort to learn the subject, realizing when you're wrong, and admitting it publically.
Many conspiracists take umbrage at our frequent assumption that they are closed-minded and dogmatic. However, this assumption is well-founded, as we invariably find that when we encounter a conspiracist who is open-minded and non-dogmatic, he or she ceases to be a conspiracist in very short order.
[edit: repeated word]
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 14, 2007 0:15:44 GMT -4
And whenever we see an HB change, acknowledge evidence, and revoke the HB mantle, they see us shower them with congratulations.
So let me add mine. I try to be as noble in error as you have been, and I salute you for it. You have shown great willingness to learn, and that's often difficult. The cognitive dissonance headache may suck now, but I like to hope that the approval of your fellow scholars (not in the "truther" sense but in the "one who studies" sense) will help with that. Further, you've taken a step into a wider world of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 14, 2007 11:13:02 GMT -4
For the last month I have learned so much about these moon rocks. Terms like breccia, regolith, fusion crust are now familiar to me and I must admit I was wrong. At the risk of overhyping, I too would like to express my appreciation for what you've done to investigate a topic you didn't fully understand. Good on ya! Out of curiosity, I'd love to know what sources of information you consulted as you looked into this issue, and which ones you found the most convincing. Care to share that with us?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 15, 2007 22:12:41 GMT -4
I want to apologize to all NASA apologists on the subject of moonrocks...I must admit I was wrong. G'day Jupiter2. I'd like to add my congratulations on your willingness to change your mind, and to do so on the list. Understood. :-) Don't worry, the headache will go away.
|
|