|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:55:52 GMT -4
Apollo Gnomon- You can see my mea culpa regarding the Saturn Rocket in a previous post. I would suggest reading the entire thread to get up to date. Otherwise, I thank you for your ideas. The covered wagon remark is a non sequitor. My statement was intended to show the contradiction in NASA's reported information concerning neutron radiation. That comparison is fa sho like apples and oranges.
Scooter- Precisely my point!! The flux of neutron radiation on the Moon's surface is not known, thus, the 1971 report does nor accurately reflect what is represented. The 1971 report states that the exposure was significantly lower than expected. This does not jibe with the latter report stating that NASA has NO IDEA what parts of the moon reflect high or low radiation. This is NASA's way of saying that the success of the moon missions was basically a crap shoot, and that is not a parsimonious explanation. No responsible scientist would engage in such methodology, and the likelihood of a successful mission, much less 6(I think?), resides somewhere in between improbable and impossible.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:59:12 GMT -4
I have to go to school to do some lab work, but I will return. I would like to thank everyone who participated. This has been a lot of fun. I feel much more informed and I am grateful for your input.
Chat with everyone soon!!
-S
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Oct 10, 2009 17:08:16 GMT -4
There's a substantial difference between 1) the pre-1969 guesstimates based on the knowledge of radiation in cislunar space, 2) the total-exposure measurements based on dosimeters from the early Apollo missions and 3) detailed mapping of the radiation levels, which would give the flux for different energy levels, distribution over the lunar surface and so forth. Knowing 1) or 2) does not automatically give you 3), which is what is needed for a stay beyond a few days.
For Apollo, it may be interesting to note that for most of the mission duration, the astronauts stayed inside the relatively well-protected command module. The lunar stay, where they were more exposed to radiation, was just 3 days total for the longest-duration mission. This does not compare with a mission where surface stay will be measured in weeks, months or years.
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on Oct 10, 2009 17:16:13 GMT -4
A few highlighted words from your quote to illustrate the difference:
"Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are. The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies. With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe."
No global mapping was available prior to the Lunar Prospector mission. As mentioned, the energy profile was not available until LEND. At best, what they had were the sum total of all neutron radiation, for a few points on the lunar surface. This is by definition more than "NO IDEA", but not enough for the return missions.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 17:39:56 GMT -4
This is NASA's way of saying that the success of the moon missions was basically a crap shoot, and that is not a parsimonious explanation. No responsible scientist would engage in such methodology, and the likelihood of a successful mission, much less 6(I think?), resides somewhere in between improbable and impossible. Well whatever you think of NASA's research prior to the landings, history would suggest that they got away with it. 'I think they didn't do enough research' ergo 'it never happened' is rather too big a leap given the mountain of evidence. I think most of the information about the lunar environment prior to Apollo was gleaned from the Surveyor probes. This document is fascinating reading (page 22 makes mention of an experiment to measure radiation level on the lunar surface but I haven't waded through all 438 pages). ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690027073_1969027073.pdfHardly the efforts of a bunch of cowboys.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 18:43:00 GMT -4
Cos- Once again circular reasoning creeps up. you stated: "Well whatever you think of NASA's research prior to the landings, history would suggest that they got away with it. 'I think they didn't do enough research' ergo 'it never happened' is rather too big a leap given the mountain of evidence." You are saying that the moon landings are true because they got away with it, but a hoaxer would say that they are a fake because they didn't truly get away with it. In each sentence the belief in one person's truth is predicated by the fact that it is true. What I am saying is that not enough information exists to allow me to make a sound judgement one way or the other. Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion. Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.” It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles. ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htmI don't have a whole lot of time, but saying something is true because it happened is not adequate when the debate is over the factual nature of what supposedly happened. I will respond to AstroSmurf as soon as I get out of lab this evening. Thanks for the replies ladies and gentleman. -S
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 18:49:55 GMT -4
And if you didn’t already know I’ll tell you how the War of the Worlds was staged. Now you (or anyone) tell me how the Apollo footage could be faked. For starters I’d like to know how to film a continuous 3 hour sequence in a vacuum simulating 1/6th G.
My point is that you can’t just dismiss it because you think it is possible to fake. In the absence of any credible propositions the only logical stance is that they weren’t.
Anyway, we can leave the photographic discussion there if you feel it is distracting from the radiation questions you aired (which incidently has caused me to research the Surveyor probes - fascinating - so I thank you for that!)
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 19:05:59 GMT -4
Nope. I am saying the moon landings are true because of a mountain of unrefuted evidence.
400000 people worked on the program. The largest rockets in history lifted off the planet. The missions were tracked all the way to the moon's surface by many installations (Jodrel Bank as I mentioned earlier). There is a mass of scientific evidence from moonrocks, to laser reflectors and experiments at the landing sites - you can bounce your own laser off them if you care. The video and film archives (as mentioned earlier). And to cap it all the recent photographs of the landing sites by the LRO.
Nothing circular. Just facts.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 10, 2009 19:56:32 GMT -4
As for the two hours comment. This is a quote from a debunker who's page brought me to this page. Here is the quote "Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem. A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding." Here is the link: www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htmThe above quote is referring specifically to passage through the Van Allen Radiation belts. Although the Van Allen Radiation belts is not the only source of radiation the astronauts had to deal with, it is the one that most hoax believers want to talk about (at least at the time that web page was written). The referenced web page is addressing the Van Allen Radiation belt issue saying that the spacecraft was in the presence of that particular source for only about two hours. This doesn't mean the astronauts didn't receive lower levels of radiation from other sources throughout the entirety of the missions. Even still, the astronauts' total radiation exposure, as measured by dosimeters, was only about one rem.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 11, 2009 1:34:21 GMT -4
2a) These blueprints would not be useful for building a new moon-shot rocket. I build some small rockets for fun. Every mission profile is different, and requires different solutions. The S-5 rockets were designed to launch a given weight of payload from a specific latitude into a particular orbit with a given set of engines burning a given fuel/oxidizer combination. Change any variable, and you might as well start from scratch. Not to mention that many (most?) of the off-the-shelf components around which the S-V was designed are simply no longer manufactured. Against the engineering effort involved in identifying, testing and accounting for differences in substitutes, scratch looks mighty appealing.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 11, 2009 3:53:58 GMT -4
NASA was not unaware of radiation issues with Apollo. The Surveyor craft that predated Apollo carried radiation counters on them that gave the overall levels of radiation on the Lunar Surface. What they couldn't do was distungush low level radiation, or tell what type of radiation they were detecting. An analogy would be a very primitive seismograph that could count how many shakes it feels, but can't determine the actual size of them or detect anything under a 3 on the Richter Scale. It would give you an idea of how many dangerous earthquakes where there, but with a better one you would receive a lot more information, including seeing all the 1-3 scale ones. This is what has happened since Apollo, we're now looking at the low levels of radiation, and the specific types to get a better picture, rather then just looking at a big and rather blurry overall picture.
I'd note here that even the short term missions may have proved fatal to at least one Astronaut. Apollo 14 landed in what we now know is a very high KREEP area resulting in the LM Crew being exposed to greater amounts of Radiation than all of the other crews (over twice). Alan Shepard, as commander, spent the longest period of time on the surface. In 1998 he died after a long battle with Lukemia, a cancer often associated with radiation damage.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 11, 2009 5:13:34 GMT -4
Swank, let me ask you a question, here. If the NASA statements were as contradictory as you think--though the explanations which have been provided make an awful lot of sense and I'm not sure why you can't get them--don't you think scientists around the world would be screaming blue murder about it? Instead, every space agency on Earth uses radiation information from Apollo, and none of them have had any problems. So which is more likely--that you're misunderstanding something or that NASA is contradicting itself? Alas. I'm aware that, as the token English major, that a lot of what I say gets lost in the shuffle. However, I would quite like an answer to this.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 11, 2009 6:57:54 GMT -4
What I am saying is that not enough information exists to allow me to make a sound judgement one way or the other. Swank23 -- How is it that you can say that? You must have spent many years researching. Exactly how much information have you looked at? Have you read every page of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (link at the bottom of every page here) plus all the documents linked there and every page of the Apollo Flight Journals? One of our members here is helping write the Apollo 9 Flight Journal. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=2328#68648How may books about Apollo have you read? How many hours of lunar video and 16mm film have you watched? How many hundreds or thousands of lunar photos have you examined? Have you considered how much radiation protection is provided on the International Space Station for the astronauts who spend much more time there than any Apollo lunar missions lasted? Do you know much about radiation in space and radiation in general? From what you've written here I'd say you know little more than I do, and I don't know much about radiation. I have, at least, read what Mike Collins says about his experience with radiation in his book, "Carrying the Fire" (he was on the first manned spacecraft to travel into the Van Allen belts, Gemini 10) , and I've read other books which touch on the subject. Wouldn't it be a little more honest to say that you simply haven't examined much of the evidence that's available, instead of claiming that none of the evidence available allows you to make up you mind? If you want to learn a bit about radiation, with excellent explanations written by fellow ApolloHoax member, JayUtah, go to the bottom of every page here and click on the link to his website, Clavius. There, under the subject "Environment" you'll find three essays that mention radiation, and there's probably more. Finally, you mentioned the webpage which was the cause of you coming here (and again, there's a link to it at the bottom of every page here). Are you aware that the webmaster there has posted information for you four times in this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Oct 11, 2009 7:30:03 GMT -4
My friend found this article put out by NASA. It is talking about the radiation exposure an astronaut would receive going to the moon or to mars. ... I have always lambasted anyone who tries to talk about the Van Allen Belt, ... I can normally shut most people up about the moon landings, but I really do not know how to argue with this point. Please answer these questions so that I can shut my friend up. ... I am really confused and I hate being wrong. Please help me debate my friend into little pieces. I am really starting to question myself. I hate to say it, but this just doesn't add up. I am delighted with the many replies, but I have yet to receive an adequate response. Most of what people have said are the same tired quotes about the Van Allen belt that debunkers post on the many ill-informed hoax websites. In fact, every single response has been a logical fallacy. An ad hoc hypothesis. You guys are beginning to sound like all the lunatics on the hoax websites. I came on this forum honestly expecting to have someone clear this up, but I do not think that that will happen. I never thought that I would begin to question the landings, but I am currently changing my belief status from "not a hoax" to "I am not sure". ... I fully expect the normal argument ad hominem (tin-foil hat, lunatic, nutbag, etc...) but please, if someone can respond and it makes sense then I want to buy that story. So far, I cannot buy what I am being sold. Once again, I would like to thank all the posters for the intelligent banter, the reserved tone, and the respect most people do not give to hoaxers. Cheers to all!! I am quoting an article put out by NASA which states this: "Space beyond low-Earth orbit is AWASH with intense radiation from the Sun..." This statement, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear to me that ALL of space beyond low earth orbit is AWASH with INTENSE radiation. Laurel, I read the same statement; however, it was anecdotal and it does not state anything specific. Although he may have said "staying there for more than a few days", he has no idea what he is basing his statement upon. The article very clearly states two very important facts: ... In the scientific method we always operationalize variables. This quote "staying there for more than just a few days" is far from operationalized. You seem to indicate that before your friend asked you a difficult question you were a firm believer in the reality of Apollo and had "always lambasted" and "normally shut up" (implying frequent encounters with hoax belief) people who claimed to the contrary. And yet, talking to people who know lots about this subject and have given you clear answers to your questions has been the trigger ("I never thought I would begin to question") for you to begin doubting. You imply that you are familiar with sites that debunk hoax claims ("fully expect the normal argument ad hominem", "respect most people do not give to hoaxers") and do so in rather unflattering terms despite your supposed "lambasting" of HBs yourself. You insist that one word in a nontechnical article ("awash") must be taken at face value unquestioned and as implying the worst of all possible interpretations, and yet any counterevidence cited in the same article is waved off as being imprecise and not adhering to the strictest application of the scientific method. I have to say that your initial post is ringing increasingly hollow, and your style is very, very reminiscent of a class of "just asking questions" posters we have had here before.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 12, 2009 17:39:02 GMT -4
You are saying that the moon landings are true because they got away with itNo. See, you're trying a deductive approach -- noting that a certain thing occurred, and that this suggests that some other proposion "must" therefore necessarily be the case. That is generally a poor line of reasoning when more direct lines exist. Not limiting one's scrutiny to the amount of pre-Apollo data, but looking at the evidence more directly attached to the Apollo missions, one finds an enormous and easily-accessible mountain of reasonably consistent evidence. If you consider the proposition, "Apollo was genuine," you're trying to undermine that statement deductively by saying that insufficient research was conducted. But there is other evidence supporting that proposition. It's not enough to find one line of reasoning that undermines or seems to invalidate the proposition; if you argue that the proposition seems unlikely, you have to refute all strong lines of reasoning leading to it. Finding the weak one and making that case only is the straw-man fallacy. Since there is a vast, consistent, and easily-accessible body of evidence supporting the actual missions, it is simply not convincing to say that because there wasn't a certain arbitrary amount of prior research done, the missions may have been faked. That argument still has to explain away the evidence of the missions themselves. but a hoaxer would say that they are a fake because they didn't truly get away with it.That one is indeed circular. The hoax believer admits that evidence exists in favor of the missions, but tries to think of other ways besides missions in which that evidence came about. That is an affirmative rebuttal. An affirmative rebuttal says, "Your proposition A can't be true because my proposition B is true instead, and contradicts yours." That method of rebuttal (unlike many others) incurs a burden of proof. You must prove Proposition B. In law this is one of the few times in which the defense will have the burden of proof. But it's not circular to say that one may find a mountain of evidence convincing.
|
|