|
Post by cos on Oct 12, 2009 19:59:22 GMT -4
Thanks Jay. Nice analysis as ever.
My 'they got away with it' comment was a tad flip but I was incredulous that anyone can make so many egregious statements. e.g.
and still try and lay claim to be an impartial logical observer! To quote Buffy The Vampire Slayer 'Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic'.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 13, 2009 1:00:09 GMT -4
G'day Swank 23
May I add my tuppence worth...
The discussion on this thread has focused mostly on the radiation, but it's worth looking at other evidence.
For me, the most relevant evidence is the rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. These rocks total about 380 kilograms, collected in six missions. The mainstream explanation is that the rocks were collected by the astronauts. But those who contend that Apollo was faked must therefore present an alternative explanation. The problem is that no explanation for the rocks provided by a Hoax Believer has ever stood up to scrutiny.
The three main explanations given for the Apollo rocks are: 1. The rocks aren't from the Moon, but scientists either don't realise it or are keeping quiet; 2. The rocks are lunar meteorites which were collected from Antarctica; or 3. The rocks were collected from the Moon by unmanned sample retriever missions.
Explanation 1 doesn't work, because the rocks are very obviously not from the Earth. Although the rocks are generally labelled as being very similar to Earth rocks, there are differences which are fundamental enough that any geologist or geochemist spending a few minutes with the Apollo rocks would realise they're not from the Earth. For example, the minerals are generally similar, but are greatly lacking in volatile elements and molecules such as sodium and water. These results weren't predicted beforehand, and they're not the sorts of things which could be faked in a lab (some of the crystals in solidified magma take thousands or millions of years to form). There are also some minerals in Apollo rocks which have never been seen on the Earth. And the idea that scientists would lie about the rocks doesn't work either, as scientists from all around the world have examined them. They include scientists from countries hostile to the USA at the time. NASA could hardly hope to get away with giving Earth rocks faked up as Moon rocks to scientists from foreign countries whose authorities would be motivated to uncover a fake if there was one.
Explanation 2 doesn't work as lunar meteorites have been weathered by their passage through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and have also been contaminated by lying on the Earth's surface. The weathering on the Apollo rocks instead is of the form of being battered by microscopic dust particles, something we can't do on Earth, and being irradiated by the sort of radiation received on the surface of the Moon.
Explanation 3 doesn't work because there's no evidence anyone has the technical ability to collect the sorts of samples represented by the Apollo rocks using robots. For example, Apollo 15's rocks included a core sample over 2 metres long but only a couple of centimetres in diameter, while Apollo 16 retrieved a rock weighing over 10 kilograms. On top of that, most of the collected rocks were photographed in situ before collection, often with astronauts in picture; if these photos were faked, then you have to explain the settings in which the rocks were photographed - either on sets made of terrestrial material which would contaminate the Apollo rocks, or on sets made of lunar material which would massively increase the amount of material brought back from the Moon.
So while the radiation might be to you a tricky issue, I find the rocks a definitive piece of evidence in favour of Apollo's reality.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 13, 2009 8:43:57 GMT -4
Explanation 2 doesn't work as lunar meteorites have been weathered by their passage through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and have also been contaminated by lying on the Earth's surface. The weathering on the Apollo rocks instead is of the form of being battered by microscopic dust particles, something we can't do on Earth, and being irradiated by the sort of radiation received on the surface of the Moon. It should also be noted that lunar meteorites weren't identified as having a lunar origin until Apollo brought back lunar samples for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 13, 2009 11:01:28 GMT -4
I was going to mention that, but I decided against it on the grounds that Swank might claim that was a circular argument.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 13, 2009 11:55:01 GMT -4
I was going to mention that, but I decided against it on the grounds that Swank might claim that was a circular argument. I suppose there is some circularity to the argument; however, the point still exists that no one knew what a lunar meteorite was back in 1969. It is the CTs who make the affirmative argument that NASA collected lunar meteorites. So the question must be asked, how did they know they were of lunar origin? That is a question the CTs must answer.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 14, 2009 1:50:31 GMT -4
Explanation 2 doesn't work as lunar meteorites have been weathered by their passage through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and have also been contaminated by lying on the Earth's surface. The weathering on the Apollo rocks instead is of the form of being battered by microscopic dust particles, something we can't do on Earth, and being irradiated by the sort of radiation received on the surface of the Moon. It should also be noted that lunar meteorites weren't identified as having a lunar origin until Apollo brought back lunar samples for comparison. Just to clartify this further, as one could assume that Lunar Meterorites could have been found pre-Apollo and then identified after the first mission flew, the first one was found in 1979 (ten years after Apollo 11) and the first one to be identified was in 1982, 10 years after Apollo ended.
|
|
|
Post by fm on Nov 3, 2009 20:38:39 GMT -4
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. Hi All, I'm new here. I just found this forum and after reading this thread and I can see why your confused Swank23. I would be too. I haven't read anything from anyone here who has come up with a decent explanation to your question. It doesnt make sense to me. You would think the Apollo missions would have brought back enough research regarding the radiation from the VABs, and other radiation you would encounter in space and on the Moon. The question is, why cant NASA build from what they already know? Which probes did NASA launch prior to Apollo to determine the dangers of radiation? And what did they find? Why cant this research be used today for future missions? How did they determine a safe duration for the moon landing the first time around? They must have known, where is this data?
|
|
|
Post by seemoe on Nov 3, 2009 21:52:49 GMT -4
Pioneer 3, 1958
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 3, 2009 23:35:34 GMT -4
Below is a list of spacecraft that have been sent to the Moon: www.braeunig.us/space/lunar.htmI can't tell you specifically what instrumentation each of these carried, but I'm willing to bet that almost all of them were equipped to measure and study the radiation environment. The data gathered by the Apollo-era spacecraft is still very useful today, but we're trying to learn more so we can better understand the environment.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 3, 2009 23:47:18 GMT -4
and I think it was Surveyor 6 that measured cosmic rays on the lunar surface. The Biomedical Report of Apollo quotes the following figures; Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space[**] and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.
[**]That region of space between the Earth and the moon or the moon’s orbit.lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmI have re-read the thread and I think a lot of information has been provided. Clearly research was carried out. Bear in mind this was all carried out with the short duration Apollo missions in mind and not with the idea of staying for months. I don't find it at all strange that we are now researching in greater depth given the proposal to build a moon base. Just what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 4, 2009 3:03:24 GMT -4
Welcome Perhaps you need to do more study then, just because you don't understand it doesn't mean others can't. Why? They deliberately missed as much of them as they could. What have you done to find out what they did? What have you done to learn what they did? They are, but detection technology has allowed us to learn more than in the 60's. Don't you think that it's only appropriate and sound judgement to use the new technology to learn more before going long term? What have you done to find out? Have you bothered looking it up? Would you build a house based on data from a sesmigraph that could only detect earthquakes over 7 when you could get new data from one that could detect everything over a 1? What have you done to try and find out? Where did you look for it? Honestly, there is this wonderful thing called Google. Try it out one day. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 4, 2009 4:13:19 GMT -4
Here is a partial list of the US space probes that measured and mapped the radiation environment from low Earth orbit, through the Van Allen Belts and cislunar space, and out into interplanetary space:
1958 February 1 - Explorer 1: Perigee: 347 km Apogee: 1,859 km. Discovered radiation belt around Earth. 1958 March 26 - Explorer 3: Perigee: 186 km Apogee: 2,799 km. Radiation & micrometeoroid data. 1958 July 26 - Explorer 4: Perigee: 257 km Apogee: 1,352 km. Mapped project Argus radiation. 1958 October 11 - Pioneer 1: Apogee 113854 km 1958 December 6 - Pioneer 3: Apogee 102,332 km. Discovered 2nd radiation belt 1959 February 17 - Vanguard 2: Perigee: 557 km Apogee: 3,049 km. Studied magnetosphere. 1959 March 3 - Pioneer 4: Lunar fly-by, Solar orbit. Measured radiation near the Moon. 1959 August 7 - Explorer 6: Perigee: 245 km Apogee: 42,400 km. First Earth photo; radiation data. 1959 September 18 - Vanguard 3: Perigee: 512 km Apogee: 3,413 km. Radiation & micrometeoroid data. 1959 October 13 - Explorer 7: Perigee: 523 km Apogee: 857 km. Magnetic field and solar flare data. 1960 November 3 - Explorer 8: Perigee: 394 km Apogee: 1,331 km. Ionospheric research. 1960 March 11 - Pioneer 5: Solar orbit. Mapped magnetic fields in interplanetary space. 1961 March 25 - Explorer 10: Perigee: 221 km Apogee: 181,100 km. Magnetic field data. 1961 April 27 - Explorer 11: Perigee: 480 km Apogee: 1,458 km. Gamma ray data. 1961 June 29 - Injun 1: Perigee: 869 km Apogee: 992 km. Radiation data. 1961 August 16 - Explorer 12: Perigee: 790 km Apogee: 76,620 km. Radiation and solar wind data. 1962 January 26 - Ranger 3: Solar orbit, gamma ray readings of lunar surface. 1962 August 27 - Mariner 2: Solar orbit, Venus fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data. 1962 October 2 - Explorer 14: Perigee: 2,558 km Apogee: 96,229 km. Magnetosphere studies. 1962 October 18 - Ranger 5: Solar orbit, gamma ray readings near Earth. 1962 October 27 - Explorer 15: Perigee: 306 km Apogee: 17,610 km. Radiation decay data. 1962 December 13 - Injun 3: Perigee: 240 km Apogee: 2,406 km. Radiation decay data. 1963 November 27 - Explorer 18: Perigee: 192 km Apogee: 197,616 km. Interplanetary radiation data. 1964 August 25 - Explorer 20: Perigee: 857 km Apogee: 999 km. Ionospheric research. 1964 October 4 - Explorer 21: Perigee: 191 km Apogee: 95,590 km. Magnetic field, radiation data. 1964 October 10 - Explorer 22: Perigee: 872 km Apogee: 1,053 km. Ionospheric and geodetic data. 1964 November 21 - Explorer 25: Perigee: 526 km Apogee: 2,319 km. Radiation data. 1964 November 28 - Mariner 4: Solar orbit, Mars fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data. 1964 December 21 - Explorer 26: Perigee: 284 km Apogee: 10,043 km. Radiation and solar wind data. 1965 April 29 - Explorer 27: Perigee: 932 km Apogee: 1,309 km. Ionospheric and geodetic data. 1965 May 29 - Explorer 28: Perigee: 229 km Apogee: 261,206 km. Magnetic field, radiation data. 1965 November 19 - Explorer 30: Perigee: 671 km Apogee: 856 km. Solar radiation data. 1965 November 29 - Explorer 31: Perigee: 505 km Apogee: 2,833 km. Ionospheric research. 1965 December 16 - Pioneer 6: Solar orbit. Studied Solar wind and Sun’s magnetic field. 1966 July 1 - Explorer 33: Perigee: 265,679 km Apogee: 480,762 km. Magnetic field, radiation data. 1966 August 17 - Pioneer 7: Solar orbit. Monitored Solar wind and cosmic rays. 1967 May 24 - Explorer 34: Perigee: 242 km Apogee: 214,379 km. Radiation, magnetic field data. 1967 June 14 - Mariner 5: Solar orbit, Venus fly-by. Returned radiation and solar wind data. 1967 July 19 - Explorer 35: Lunar orbit, Perigee: 484 km Apogee: 675 km. Earth magnetic tail measurements. 1967 November 9 - Apollo 4: Perigee: 370 km Apogee: 18,256 km. Tested the Apollo CSM (including radiation shielding) in high Earth orbit. 1967 December 13 - Pioneer 8: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data. 1968 March 5 - Explorer 37: Perigee: 353 km Apogee: 433 km. Solar radiation data. 1968 April 4 - Apollo 6: Perigee: 183 km Apogee: 22,259 km. Tested the Apollo CSM (including radiation shielding) in high Earth orbit. 1968 August 8 - Explorer 40: Perigee: 679 km Apogee: 2,489 km. Radiation data. 1968 November 8 - Pioneer 9: Solar orbit. Returned Solar radiation data. 1969 June 21 - Explorer 41: Perigee: 80,374 km Apogee: 98,159 km. Cislunar radiation data. 1971 March 13 - Explorer 43: Perigee: 1,845 km Apogee: 203,130 km. Earth magnetosphere research. 1971 July 8 - Explorer 44: Perigee: 433 km (269 mi). Apogee: 632 km. Solar radiation data. 1971 November 15 - Explorer 45: Perigee: 272 km Apogee: 18,149 km. Studied magnetosphere, energetic particles. 1972 September 23 - Explorer 47: Perigee: 201,100 km Apogee: 235,600 km. Investigated cislunar radiation, Earth's magnetosphere, interplanetary magnetic field.
I count at least 45 missions in nearly 11 years before NASA sent the first men to the moon.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 4, 2009 5:10:20 GMT -4
It doesnt make sense to me. You would think the Apollo missions would have brought back enough research regarding the radiation from the VABs, and other radiation you would encounter in space and on the Moon. The question is, why cant NASA build from what they already know? Apollo deliberately missed the van Allen belts, so what information do you expect them to have about them that could be better than from satellites that specifically study them? This information really isn't hard to find, so why have you apparently not even tried? Google? Wikipedia? Firstly, who says it isn't? Secondly, would you trust 40 year old data for a constantly changing environment? What you are asking is the equivalent of wondering why we need weather monitoring stations to check conditions for transatlantic flights when we have weather data from the 60s. Thirdly, would you take data collected with a 40 year old instrument over data collected with a modern, improved, more sensitive and reliable one?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 6, 2009 14:25:02 GMT -4
So was fm a seagull poster? It would be nice if a HB conceded the point but they just seem to either slope off or ignore the fact that their question has been comprehensively answered and simply jump to some other issue. I might be old fashioned but I think it is ill mannered. They just seem to be attempting to score points and regard enlightenment as a form of weakness.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 6, 2009 14:30:06 GMT -4
That last is particularly common in society in general these days. Changing your mind based on new evidence if flip-flopping; didn't you know?
|
|