|
Post by Obviousman on Feb 4, 2012 17:46:10 GMT -4
Also useful would be
A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62)
Available from NTRS or can also send.
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 6, 2012 16:41:37 GMT -4
Also useful would be A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62) Available from NTRS or can also send. I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. There must have been plenty of radiation measurements taken from unmanned probes by entities other than NASA. Is that the case? Knowing the exact type of radiation and density or exposure medical types like radiation oncologists with the help of physicists should be able to sort this out easily. If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:54:14 GMT -4
I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. Yes. In fact, entire conferences were held on the subject during the Apollo development. Radiation oncology is largely irrelevant. The field you're fishing for is health physics. Perhaps. I assume your plan is to manipulate the definitions of "comprehensive," "documents," and "focused" to make whatever is available seem insufficient. If you're setting up a test for authenticity, then you need to specify your standards unambiguously to start with, and justify objectively why those should be the standards.
|
|
|
Post by tomblvd on Feb 6, 2012 21:35:11 GMT -4
Also useful would be A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62) Available from NTRS or can also send. I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. There must have been plenty of radiation measurements taken from unmanned probes by entities other than NASA. Is that the case? Knowing the exact type of radiation and density or exposure medical types like radiation oncologists with the help of physicists should be able to sort this out easily. If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. Am I the only one who finds it jaw-droppingly ironic that forthethrill, in a post asking for "comprehensive scientific documents" on radiation, actually quotes the title of one of these "comprehensive scientific documents"? Stunning.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:24:41 GMT -4
[quote author=forthethrillofital board=theories thread=3336 post=98512 time=132856089If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. [/quote]
So go look for them then. Start with the reference you quoted in that post for one thing.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 7, 2012 11:05:34 GMT -4
Am I the only one who finds it jaw-droppingly ironic that forthethrill, in a post asking for "comprehensive scientific documents" on radiation, actually quotes the title of one of these "comprehensive scientific documents"? Stunning. Truly amazing. I guess when you're so sure you're right, you don't have to bother reading anyone else's posts.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 7, 2012 17:05:49 GMT -4
Am I the only one who finds it jaw-droppingly ironic that forthethrill, in a post asking for "comprehensive scientific documents" on radiation, actually quotes the title of one of these "comprehensive scientific documents"? Stunning. Truly amazing. I guess when you're so sure you're right, you don't have to bother reading anyone else's posts. And yet for some reason it's still important to quote them. Isn't this a recurring complaint about Patrick's posts over at JREF? That he often quotes other people, and then goes on to ignore everything he's quoted?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 7, 2012 18:05:37 GMT -4
So, forthethrillofital, what effort have you made to find these comprehensive documents? Googling is not a sufficient answer.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Feb 7, 2012 18:38:51 GMT -4
So, forthethrillofital, what effort have you made to find these comprehensive documents? Googling is not a sufficient answer. Though it seems that they didn't do even that, at least not well.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Feb 8, 2012 7:30:30 GMT -4
Truly amazing. I guess when you're so sure you're right, you don't have to bother reading anyone else's posts. That reminds me of the five most recent quotes I kept: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. -- Isaac Asimov The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. -- Bertrand Russell Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession -- their ignorance. -- Hendrik Willem van Loon, Dutch-American journalist and lecturer (1882-1944). It is the tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know -- and the less a man knows, the more sure he is that he knows everything. -- Joyce Cary, English Author (1888-1957). Dumpiphany: The realization that the reason the entire conversation has been difficult to follow is that you're talking to an idiot. -- Zach Weiner
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 12, 2012 14:14:59 GMT -4
[quote author=forthethrillofital board=theories thread=3336 post=98512 time=132856089If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. So go look for them then. Start with the reference you quoted in that post for one thing.[/quote] You misunderstood me. My view is that an examination of the data on outer space radiation and the science of radiation health and disease would not be a fruitful road for prohoax types to travel down. It seems to me that the yield in terms of proving a hoax based on this approach would be exceedingly low.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Feb 12, 2012 15:04:56 GMT -4
So, you are yielding and admitting that the data provided that the radiation risks were manageable (particularly with a bunch of brave men who were willing to accept a higher level of risk than others might) is persuasive. You prefaced that statement earlier by saying "If the NASA missions to the moon were real...."
Sorry, but that does seem to imply that you are accepting that the missions are real, does it not.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 12, 2012 16:21:39 GMT -4
You misunderstood me. My view is that an examination of the data on outer space radiation and the science of radiation health and disease would not be a fruitful road for prohoax types to travel down. It seems to me that the yield in terms of proving a hoax based on this approach would be exceedingly low. You deserve credit for taking this position, as so many hoax advocates claim that radiation was some sort of impenetrable barrier to human spaceflight to the moon. Now that you've been persuaded of this, it only remains to persuade you that there were no other obstacles to the Apollo flights and that they actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 13, 2012 1:17:17 GMT -4
Also useful would be A STUDY OF SPACE RADIATION SHIELDING PROBLEMS FOR MANNED VEHICLES (Wilson, Miller and Kloster, NASA CR-56005, 8 Jun 62) Available from NTRS or can also send. I image the radiation issue would be easy to sort out. There must be good data on this. There must have been plenty of radiation measurements taken from unmanned probes by entities other than NASA. Is that the case? Knowing the exact type of radiation and density or exposure medical types like radiation oncologists with the help of physicists should be able to sort this out easily. If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. You are half-right. There is plentiful information from multiple sources, enough to make a first-order approximation a trivial problem. As a first-order approximation, all of the radiological threats fall magnitudes below the level at which astronaut survival is impossible. * Taking it any further is a first-year error; plugging in numbers to your variables at whatever arbitrary number of significant figures are available, and being mislead by that in thinking your final result has the same accuracy. In the real world, it is a complex enough modeling problem that it is paralleled by actual measurement (such as, the dosimeter badges worn by the astronauts.) * (The caveat is that a massive solar flare "could" have happened, and been dangerous. But a meteor could have struck the spacecraft. Or alien space pirates could have boarded it in flight. Since none of these things happened, it is hardly worth worrying about the probabilities. The space weather record for the period is readily available.)
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 13, 2012 10:56:05 GMT -4
You deserve credit for taking this position, as so many hoax advocates claim that radiation was some sort of impenetrable barrier to human spaceflight to the moon. You may choose to give Patrick credit here, but I do not. I see it merely as having been refuted before he was out of the gate. He has so commonly before set up straw-man expectations for documentation, and has so flagrantly ignored people's posts before realizing they contained pertinent information pertinent, that I'm simply not willing to overlook the hoaxish line of reasoning insinuated in "If this were all real then there'd be plenty of documents" -- after one of the big documents was referred to by name.
|
|