|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 14:38:53 GMT -4
I think that we are getting a little off topic here, and I would like to reinforce that I am not saying that the landings were faked. What I am saying is that the anomalies beg for an answer. My original concern was the radiation, not the film footage. The film footage is at best speculative and proves nothing one way or the other, but it would be nice to actually view an inspect the original footage. By the way, I do not see how the supposed hours of footage meet the requirements of being parsimonious. It is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the footage or pictures were not tampered with. Like all things media, they are at best representations of what could have happened. The fact that the 11 tapes are missing is simply missing data and a point of concern anytime data is missing. I would rather deal with concrete scientific principles that can either be valid or invalid.
And that brings me back to the radiation, and in order to solve this I will email the authors of the report above relating to the radiation dangers on the Apollo missions.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 15:03:53 GMT -4
It is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the footage or pictures were not tampered with. Well until someone tells me just how to simulate shooting in 1/6th G continuously for 3 hours (parabolic dust arcs? how?) I am going to apply Occam's razor again and state that they are genuine. Incidently, the tv camera was not the only camera recording the event. There was a 16mm film camera on the lunar module, so here are is some original footage that is safely in the archive. www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73jCthcAokwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTgc7w8wf0&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 15:25:10 GMT -4
First I would like to thank you for the link Cos; however,
like I said before, my original intent was to focus on the radiation and not the pictures. I understand that you find the pictures to be compelling Cos, but I do not base any belief on video evidence. Someone who studies general semantics would call that "confusing the map for the territory". It is a common mistake among people who confuse pictures or film footage of UFO's (unidentified flying objects) with alien spacecraft. If it is possible for the photos or pictures to be contrived through fakery, such as the movie Capricorn One, then I will take them for what they are, pictures that reflect some kind of event.
Now back to the radiation. I have read the report posted concerning the radiation exposure of the Apollo missions and it states the same thing that every debunker states, the two hour Van Allen belt radiation exposure explanation. Also, the report was commissioned in 1971, and we did not know anything whatsoever about the **true** surface radiation of the moon until 1989.
If you look through my past posts, I cite two articles released by NASA contradicting the Van Allen belts explanation. But by far, the one anomaly that screams "figure me out" concerns neutron radiation on the surface of the moon. Even to this day scientist for NASA are not sure how much radiation exposure an individual would receive on the moon's surface. It can not be possible for anyone to know if a trip would result in minimal exposure if one does not know the degree of radiation exposure encountered on the moon. Especially if the surface of the moon itself is radioactive.
Please see my previous posts. I do not want to repeat myself again.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 10, 2009 15:32:06 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?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 10, 2009 15:32:45 GMT -4
How exactly is the Apollo mission not considered long term duration? Because they lasted less than two weeks in comparison to the alternative, which are lunar bases or missions to Mars that will last months or even years. At first, everyone seems to want to say that the astronauts were only exposed to 2 hours of radiation I don’t see anyone quoting this two-hour figure except you. We’re saying the astronauts were exposed to radiation for the full duration of the missions, but the accumulated dose over that relatively short period was not dangerous. Are you telling me that we had no idea if the astronauts would be safe and that we are JUST NOW getting around to finding out,but we sent the astronauts anyway and that we are just now starting to worry about this? No, we are not telling you that. Enough was known about the radiation environment of the moon during Apollo that we were confident that the spacecraft and spacesuits provided adequate protection for durations of only a few days. Now that we want to go back for perhaps months at a time, we need to learn more about the moon and study even the smallest sources of radiation as these can become a hazard over long durations. Low-level sources, such as secondary radiation from cosmic ray collisions, were not an issue for Apollo because we just weren’t there long enough for it to matter. Bob B. you state that I keep insisting that the Apollo missions are long duration but you state that they are not. The point I was making is that you seem to believe Apollo should have already solved all the problems regarding the mitigation of space radiation. Apollo needed to solve the problem for only a two-week duration. The Apollo solutions do not necessarily apply themselves to the current problem where durations will be months or perhaps even years. We are now dealing with a new problem that requires new data and new solutions. They are long duration, especially considering that NASA has not idea how much radiation exposure a human would need to be able to endure in order to go "back" to the moon. NASA has a pretty good idea, they just don’t know specifically how much. To pinpoint the specifics, they are continuing to study the problem. Their general idea of how much was good enough for the short-duration Apollo missions. So far, I have my answer on the materials used to protect to astronauts from radiation exposure and the answer is NO MATERIALS WERE USED. Incorrect; no “special” radiation shielding above and beyond the spacecraft structure and the spacesuits was required. The spacecraft and spacesuits provide several layers of protection. For instance, the following illustration shows a cut-away view the Command Module primary hull: www.braeunig.us/pics/CM_hull.jpgNow, please explain to me how the astronauts were not exposed to intense radiation. Already explained ad nauseum. NASA admitted in the article above that they have NO IDEA how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon. Incorrect; they are simply adding to their current knowledge base to get a better handle on the specifics. I am repeating myself because I cannot get an answer that jibes with the facts that I am presenting along withe links to the articles. I believe the answers do jibe. If NASA has no idea how much radiation exposure would occur on the moon then how can anyone determine what is long term exposure and what is short term exposure? Because your claim that NASA has “no idea” mischaracterizes the situation. If it is cold outside, I don’t need to know exactly how cold it is to know I can run from my house to my neighbor’s house without freezing to death. But if I’m planning on spending the next week outdoors camping, I had better do my homework and know exactly what the expected temperatures are and make sure I’m properly attired. Apollo was like the quick sprint next door; we knew the situation well enough not to worry about it too much. What we are now preparing for is like the weeklong camping trip. Just being close is no longer good enough.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 10, 2009 15:42:47 GMT -4
Although the original photo's [sic] were taken in digital imagery, no hi-def images were released until the 90's. (I could be wrong on this so if you could kindly point me to the direction of only the original footage of the 12 or latter missions.) Why did you ask me to find footage if you don't base any belief on video evidence?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 15:51:27 GMT -4
Now that we want to go back for perhaps months at a time, we need to learn more about the moon and study even the smallest sources of radiation as these can become a hazard over long durations.Good point and key to understanding the renewed interest in the radiation environment. It reminds me of the problem of radioactive Radon gas in Cornwall. Not a problem if you are going on holiday but if you live there you need to take precautions. As for NASA having no idea about the hazards I think this is another example that they did. And they documented the actual exposures the astronauts were subject to. history.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdfIt is simply not credible to state that they were ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2009 15:54:37 GMT -4
The word "awash" was indeed a poor choice to use in the article you reference.
There are some relevant concepts when dealing with exposure to hazards of any kind: time, distance, and shielding.
Butchers use shielding (chain metal gloves) to minimize the risks from sharp knives in close contact with their hands all day long.
Xray technicians leave the room during exposure, to increase the [distance and shielding from the radiation that they use on a daily basis. A doctor recently told me he would not recommend a CAT scan for one of my kids because it's equivalent to 1000 chest x-rays, and he'd carry that dose for the rest of his life.
The clean-up teams sent into Chernobyl were limited to about 15 minutes of work time, and then they were rotated out. Forever. They were exposed to their total lifetime limit of radiation during that work session.
The Apollo teams were exposed to whatever they were exposed to for brief periods of time, and they were all adults. The risk assessment made by the "smart guys" deemed the exposure to be within acceptable limits.
As far as the extra-solar radiation sources like supernovae are concerned, I think distance would apply. Yeah, there's measurable amounts of many kinds of radiation from them, but it's pretty spread out - remember the inverse-square-law.
In my research on heat-management I've seen some designs for long-term lunar habitats. They're all buried. They sometimes have "bubble" sections using water-filled double-layer domes to allow light in while still shielding the occupants. Anything else would be considered temporary housing.
The problem with your referece article is that the word "awash" is emotive, not quantitative. It's a conceptual article, not a technical article.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 10, 2009 16:12:08 GMT -4
If it is possible for the photos or pictures to be contrived through fakery, such as the movie Capricorn One, then I will take them for what they are, pictures that reflect some kind of event.
And I can tell you how Capricorn One was filmed and Star Wars and Space Odyssey 2001 but I'm damned if I can tell you how Apollo was filmed other than it was genuine and I'll wager neither can you or anyone else.
I could knock up a fake UFO picture or a picture of the Loch Ness monster. It may not prove that the original was fake but it shows it could be done. The Apollo footage shows many things that just could not be simulated. I have no blind faith in video images just a scientific knowledge of the possible.
It is all very well to make the assertion that it could have been faked but the onus is on you to show how.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:19:29 GMT -4
This is a quote from the 1971 report. "Neutrons Neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials were postulated to be a potential hazard to Apollo crewmen (Kastner et al., 1969). Two methods for neutron-dose assessment were used. These techniques of whole-body counting and neutron-resonant foil were initiated on the Apollo 11 mission. Later analyses indicated that neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated. Both methods were retained because of the remaining potential for neutron production by solar-event particles and because of possible crewman exposure to neutrons from the SNAP-27 radioisotope thermal generator used to power the Apollo lunar surface experiments packages." The intended meaning of this seems to say to me that NASA had already accumulated the necessary evidence reflecting that the neutron radiation was minimal(notice that nowhere in the 1971 report is any mention made of long or short duration visits); however, the article that I am quoting from NASA, which is much more recent, clearly states that concrete information concerning neutron radiation on the moon was not available until 1998. "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." This not only seems to completely contradict the dossier commissioned in 1971, but it states very clearly that prior to this experiment NASA had no idea what fraction of the radiation is high energy(really bad) and what is low energy(kind of bad), whether the time was long term exposure or short term is of no consequence if the exposure is to high energy radiation. If NASA scientist had no idea what fraction of the radiation is high or low energy, how can they effectively state that short term exposure is acceptable? I can not imagine the US sending astronauts to the moon if it did not know what effect the neutron radiation would have until they actually got to the moon. This is just really bad science and it is circular reasoning. Both the individuals on this board and the 1971 report state that the reason short term exposure is okay is because it should be okay. No evidence is offered until 1998. The 1971 evidence is gathered after the astronauts were already supposedly there, so of course they will say that the exposure was minimal. If this was true, and the 1971 evidence was that compelling, then why appropriate the most recent study involving the LEND? The logic is illogical. 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.htmOnce again we are back to my original comment. The article that I cited, originally, states in no uncertain terms that space beyond low earth orbit is awash with intense radiation. What I am being is skeptical. I am not promoting any idea or belief. The contradictions beg for an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 10, 2009 16:20:00 GMT -4
swank, Do you have any knowledge on the ability of aluminum to attenuate the typical radiation hazard in cislunar space and LEO? It is well established science, used routinely in manned and unmanned spacecraft.
ETA: and what is the flux of this neutron radiation on the lunar surface? Is it documented to be enough to cause concern on short missions?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2009 16:31:38 GMT -4
1) Factually and conceptually incorrect, and 2) conceptually irrelevant.
1a) Microfilm of the blueprints exist. They're at the Marshal Space Flight Center. Physical blueprints would have degraded by this time anyway. Working drawings are not a good archival storage media. Microfilm is a literal photograph of the original documents.
1b) If the moonshot were a hoax, the plans would exist anyway. Nobody disputes that massive missiles lauched from Florida on the stated dates. If the missiles were unmanned, the plans would still exist. People had to build the gizmos, no matter what.
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.
2b) lack of physical blueprints does not "prove" or "disprove" anything. Show me the plans for the Viking Longships that sailed to Nova Scotia.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2009 16:38:49 GMT -4
I can not imagine walking across the North American Continent with my belongings in a covered wagon, or even worse with a wheelbarrow, but some of my ancestors did both of those things.
|
|
|
Post by swank23 on Oct 10, 2009 16:41:12 GMT -4
Look folks. What I said about the photos and video footage is that their absence is a confounding factor. Without looking at the originals we will never know what validity they may or may not provide. It is merely a factor that is missing and that is all.
Laurel- I wanted to see the originals simply because I wanted to see the originals. Don't take offense, but I was unaware that more footage existed. As I said before, I came here to try and find an answer to the radiation issue. The pictures and video comments were not intended to be anything other than being a missing variable, and everybody on this thread took it and ran with it. I would like to thank you for the links, just as I would like to thank everyone for their input.
Cos- Just as with Laurel, the pictures were of little consequence to me. If you need a more clear example of what I was attempting to say, then I will accept the onus. Look no further than the War of the World's broadcast. People at the time believed that it was true because they confused the radio for reality. It can happen and that was my only point. I am very appreciative of the links that you have posted as well. Thank you kindly.
Apollo Gnomon- While I absolutely agree that the term "awash" is not quantitative, it is a qualitative description desiring to reflect an amount rather than an emotion. The article was definitely not found in a journal of methodology, but it was trying to convey an idea regarding an amount. This idea was further exemplified in my references to the other articles describing the qualitative elements of neutron moon radiation. Which as I will say again, is the reason that I am here in the first place.
Once again I would like to thank everyone for their input. I have learned a great deal about the Apollo missions that I would have otherwise not known.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Oct 10, 2009 16:55:48 GMT -4
Um, no. It's a qualitative description, and has no reflection whatsoever regarding amount. It relates to direction of source, which is many sources of many different kinds from many directions.
By the way, one of your ref's suggests that the moon surface itself is radioactive. Not.... exactly. Not like the moon dirt is "hot" like uranium, but that it reacts to the high-speed radiation by re-radiating. It's more like the phosphors inside a fluorescent light being excited by UV and radiating visible light, rather than being permanently radioactive substance. Clear-as-mud? It's an analogy - but I hope you understand, or please ask for better explanations.
Time, distance, shielding, total-body-loads (or lifetime exposures) and risk-benefit ratios were at play. They took a risk strapping men to bombs and flinging them at a pebble a quarter-million miles away. Every risk was analyzed with the information at hand.
Try not to get hung up on specific words.
|
|