|
Post by sts60 on May 1, 2006 9:04:10 GMT -4
I'll stipulate that P&T are more about extravagantly denouncing what they see as BS rather than rationally dissecting it. I'll also stipulate that I don't always agree with them on what is BS.
Having said that, primarily for turbonium's sake, I'd like to say as well that I hope he can marshal his radiation arguments soon and post on the "Radiation for turbonium" thread, telling us exactly what the radiation threat was and exactly why the Apollo technology, techniques, and mission design were inadequate to meet that threat. Perhaps as a bonus he'll tell us why James Van Allen doesn't know what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 26, 2006 16:33:51 GMT -4
It's irrelevant anyway, because various astronauts, including Apollo astronauts, have talked about seeing stars in space, and, through careful shading, on the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 22, 2006 9:33:07 GMT -4
Frankly, I find anger to be the most likely reaction. Anger at being lied to, anger at being ambushed, anger at the general smirking obnoxiousness of Sibrel, anger at having such a useless person call something for which I worked so hard and put my life on the line a lie, anger at Sibrel's lying for profit, anger at someone misusing the Bible that way. Nobody who knows me would call me violent, but I certainly would be tempted to kick his worthless a** - it's all he deserves.
Since I'm not a former Apollo astronaut, I'll just settle for being angry at some very fine engineers and technicians with whom I've had the privilege to work being called incompetent or dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 18, 2006 11:00:59 GMT -4
Well, as a Christian I find it pretty offensive. But as an American, I defend their right to do it. And no, I don't think all Christians "aren't like" all Muslims, whatever that means. We always notice the hotheads, of course; they get all the media coverage...
I saw P&T in Las Vegas once. They are offensive, frequently crude, and rather too mean-spirited and cynical for my taste. They're also amazingly talented, funny, and immensely entertaining.
|
|
|
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 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 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 sts60 on Jan 3, 2007 10:40:55 GMT -4
Yes, I've read about SPAN - Solar Particle Alert Network, among other things. The notion that the astronauts could have somehow "dodged" large solar flares through this so-called "warning system" is patently ridiculous.
Not dodging in the sense of "getting out of the way". But there were contingency plans to abort EVAs, shelter in spacecraft, orient the CSM stack for maximum protection, etc. I think there was some idea of even adjusting the orbit to linger in the shadow of the Moon, but I'd have to check on that. The threat of a significant SPE was recognized and planned for.
But the issue of radiation hazards to man goes well beyond this. Virtually everything about deep space radiation for manned missions is largely unknown in several aspects.
I don't know about "largely". But there is a lot to be learned in order to adequately plan for long-duration missions, as well as to maximize safety for short-duration Apollo-style missions.
And again, there is a complete lack of reference to any Apollo data, or even details about (what should be considered) extremely valuable and unique events - the only times humans have ever experienced deep space radiation first-hand.
Even if future manned missions were only going to be much longer in duration than Apollo (which they aren't, at first), the data and experiences from them should still be considered invaluable.
They don't even merit more than a single passing mention. That's very puzzling to me, and to simply dismiss it out of hand isn't treating the issue with the consideration it deserves.
I am working, slowly, on a non-out-of-hand answer to that. You've already indicated you'll wait, so I don't have anything to add right now.
But, just to clarify: are you saying that this is evidence that Apollo was a hoax? Or are you just saying it's puzzling?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 31, 2006 10:20:58 GMT -4
It's naive at best and disingenuous at worst to say that the main concern of the study is short-term trips like Apollo. Sure it is. But I didn't say it. Look again at what I said above - any manned missions beyond LEO. I hope you're not being "disingenuous" in making such a claim....
Feh. I expressed that poorly. Try "to say that the study is not primarily concerned with long-duration missions."
No "cherry-picking". They clearly state missions "to the moon and Mars", being missions "beyond low Earth orbit", are "relatively long-term missions".
They are clearly addressing ANY manned missions beyond LEO, period.
If you contend they are concerned with manned missions beyond LEO only longer in duration than the Apollo missions were, then you need to point out where they specifically make that distinction. Otherwise, you are the one guilty of "cherry-picking".
You're still trying to shoehorn the primary focus of the report - radiation protection for long-duration lunar missions (i.e., lunar bases) and Mars missions - into a context where radiation hazards are equally problematic for such long missions and for short mission like Apollo.
You agree it would be useful. I agree it's not "the complete story", and more data is needed. But the "long-term missions" are described as being any missions beyond LEO, such as the initial manned moon missions - which are planned to be no longer in duration than Apollo. These are missions that we are supposed to already have obtained data for.
Lather, rinse, repeat. You are once again doggedly ignoring the context: establishment of a moon station or for a crewed mission to Mars.
"Adequate shielding"? What was "adequate" about it? And what are "acceptable risk parameters"?
Adequate protection from charged particles and the radiation environment for short-term missions, including transit of the Van Allen belts using a trajectory which Van Allen himself helped design. Acceptable risk included the low probability of a really dangerous solar flare during the mission, which would have required abandonment of the EVA and return to the CSM, which would have been oriented to provide maximum shielding for the crew.
You admit that you haven't even read the full report, but you go right ahead with the standard assortment of vague summary dismissals anyway!
No, they were specific dismissals: you're deliberately misinterpreting the primary focus of the report. You're wrong in saying that Apollo didn't provide adequate radiation protection within acceptable risk parameters.
Old habits are hard to break, I guess..
Yes, they are - you are flogging a few selected passages again, ignoring the context, to support your particular interpretation. You are appealing to FUD (They act as if Apollo never even happened) because you found wording generic enough tto suit your purposes. And, above all, you are placing your intepretation of this study, and, more broadly, your layman's opinion of the Apollo radiation protection development above all the evidence that Apollo happened.
The missions were "changing" in the late 1980's? Wait a minute. They cite radiation studies from 1961 through the 1980's. Wasn't "a reexamination of the radiation exposure limits..required" when the missions were really "changing" -- in the late 1960's??
So you're claiming that radiation exposure limits weren't being examined during the late 1960s?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 30, 2006 11:26:40 GMT -4
No, they are specifically concerned with any manned missions beyond LEO....Such as plans for lunar base development and habitation missions, which are extended stays. Or Mars missions. As indicated here: The relative risks posed by exposure to radiation will be substantially different for the establishment of a moon station or for a crewed mission to Mars.It's naive at best and disingenuous at worst to say that the main concern of the study is short-term trips like Apollo. I can cherry-pick bits, too, like "prolonged interplanetary missions" and so on. And speaking of cherry-picking, NASA's long-range plans include possible human exploratory missions to the moon and Mars within the next quarter century. Such missions beyond low Earth orbit will expose crews to transient radiation from solar particle events....Now let's consider the extended version here: The long-range plans of NASA include possible human exploratory missions to the moon and Mars within the next 25 years. There are three potentially serious health effects for crew members that need to be controlled or mitigated before such relatively long-term missions beyond low Earth orbit can be initiated:1 (1) the effects of microgravity on human physiology and the effects, if any, on cell biology and biochemistry; (2) the psychosocial aspects of long-duration confinement in microgravity with no escape possible; and (3) the biological effects of exposure to radiation in space. The last concern is a serious one because the levels of radiation in space are high enough and the missions are long enough that adequate shielding is necessary to minimize carcinogenic, cataractogenic, and possible neurologic effects for crew members.That most certainly would (or should) include the Apollo data! To claim that Apollo missions were too short to really be useful is nonsense. What about this data that was posted here earlier?....I agree that the data collected in support of, during, and after (by ALSEP, etc.) are all useful. But not the complete story, certainly not for the long-term missions being planned, which is why NASA is so interested in obtaining more data. And what about all the other radiation data obtained during the Apollo missions?
Why aren't they including any of it in their study? Or even citing any of it in their references?To be fair, I can't frame a complete response to this until I've had a chance to read this paper (rather than skim it) and look at some of the sources. Your insinuation that it's somehow suspicious is duly noted. They were decades away from designing a spacecraft that could protect astronauts from radiation in space - in 1967! OK - then two years later, they just went ahead anyway. Right.No. They had a spacecraft and a mission design which could provide adequate shielding within the acceptable risk parameters. So actual men are exposed to deep space radiation and take measurements in space and even on the Moon. But, as to the effects of proton exposure, "no data" exists for humans, and "limited data" exists for animals. Again, to be fair, a complete response to this bit requires me to read the paper and look at some references. My provisional reply is that you are ignoring the context of this statement relative to the report. But that's not to be considered a proper rebuttal. In any case, turbonium has simply quote-mined yet another paper by people who presumably fully understand and accept that Apollo happened exactly as represented, and used it to support his appeal to FUD that somehow it was either impossible or insanely reckless for NASA to attempt lunar missions. But this ignores the vast amount of work that was done by many highly qualified people.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 29, 2006 11:17:12 GMT -4
"FUD" is generally considered to be Internet-wide and non-domain-specific.
But if you're looking for acronyms with multiple meanings, the aerospace world is notorious for that. LOS, for example, has two meanings which are essentially antonyms. (Loss Of Signal, Line Of Sight)
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Dec 23, 2006 1:34:23 GMT -4
Yes I read it. My problem still relates to the lunar surface, the monitors in the link remained in orbit except for the dosometers which the astronauts wore and had analyzed on return. Span was concerned with flares, not shock accelerated particles.
The ALSEP experiments returned environmental data for years from the lunar surface.
Why is it assumed that the lunar surface has a uniform radiation environment when it doesn't have a uniform gravitational field or an atmosphere?
Nobody "assumes" that the lunar surface has a perfectly uniform radiation environment. But remote sensing has shown that it is uniform within reasonable bounds.
Any FUD?
Yes. In fact, you are making the same appeal to FUD as you did on the other thread.
I have trouble imagining the true nature of the lunar surface.
That's normal. We're simply not evolved to have a good feel for an airless, 1/6 G environment.
It might just be me but the NASA version
It's not just the NASA version. It's the former-Soviet-bloc version too. And the Japanese have sent spacecraft to the Moon as well.
depicts for me a static sterile surface with a small interaction from the star it revolves about.
It's almost certainly sterile because of the vacuum, the lunar-daily temperature extremes, the lack of any atmosphere to shield UV from the Sun, and the lack of an effective magnetic shielding with along with the vacuum allows constant charged-particle exposure.
As far as "interactions", well, there's a bit of dust that gets raised by electrostatic effects along the morning terminator. But there's no water or atmosphere to stir up, trap the heat, etc.
While here we are on a planet that has all its weather determined by that same star.
A planet that is tectonically and volcanically active; a planet with an atmosphere and enormous amounts of water. About as different as it gets.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 7, 2006 22:30:06 GMT -4
I'm also continuing to look for information about radiation in the VA belts, cislunar and lunar environments - the types, average amounts and levels of fluctuation - and the corresponding effects they have on life forms, specifically humans.
I recommend you look at some of the reports I linked earlier - many of them are online at the NASA Technical Information Server - which have all the wealth of data collected beginning quite early on.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 2, 2006 14:48:46 GMT -4
That's what I started to do, but wimped out on due to lack of time. I may make it a long-range project. Suitable early (pre-A11) links are in my earlier post; you can look up "space radiation" on the NASA Technical Documents server for plenty more.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2006 14:04:14 GMT -4
Crud - several of the links have spurious spacing or HTML break tags - and I don't really have time to fix 'em - just paste the link in your address window and get rid of any spaces or "<br>"s. Note that some of the links are PDF files, some are to the page for ordering printed copies.
|
|