by StarmanSkye » Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:57 pm
Good grief, more mumbo-jumbo by a self-professed (and abundantly demonstrated) authority on scientific illiteracy.<br><br>Scollon, you SAY the NASA head's said that radiation beyond earth-orbit is a major impediment. What has this to do with 'proving' the Apollo missions never happened? Again, another sign of atrocious sloppy thinking. Apollo flights NEVER LEFT EARTH ORBIT.<br><br>I guess you were absent when your astonomy class studied the earth-moon system, eh? You, uh, DO sort-of know the moon orbits the earth, eh? (Jees, what a DuH moment.)<br><br>Taken in context with NASA's well-declared position on need for adequate shielding for extended moon-visits of long duration (to protect against solar flares, which can be fairly reliably predicted and planned around, and given the 10-minute lead-time for astronauts to take shelter from an unexpected rare sudden solar storm event), but more importantly the cosmic-bombardment of supernovae and solar storms beyond the shelter of earth's magnetic field, there ARE plans for shielding in-place, as a modest review of the literature would readily show. But then, I 'forgot' Scollon -- You don't bother with reading scientific gobbedly-gook. Seems, being a Moon Hoax advocate means never having to say "I was mistaken."<br><br>For OTHERS with a more open mind:<br><br>re: HBs claims that lunar landers were completely 'untested':<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.clavius.org/techdefect.html">www.clavius.org/techdefect.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>Understanding that Apollos 7, 8, 9, and 10 were essentially flight tests of the Apollo hardware prior to operational deployment, we realize that the purpose of these flights was to discover defects. The unmanned flight tests (Apollos 4, 5, and 6) established the basic spaceworthiness of the Apollo spacecraft. At this point it was determined that the spacecraft were capable of ferrying astronauts safely to space and back to earth, although they were not yet capable of executing a lunar landing mission. But since flight tests are conducted specifically in order to discover defects, it is not surprising that a large number of defects was discovered. <br><br>****<br>re: Radiation shielding:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lyon.edu/projects/marsbugs/2004/20040511.txt">www.lyon.edu/projects/mar...040511.txt</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>PENMANSHIP IN BOXING GLOVES: PLANNING FOR MARS, THE STAFFORD WAY<br>Edited from testimony of General Thomas Stafford<br>From Astrobiology Magazine<br><br>4 May 2004<br>Focused life science experiments--the biggest risk going out there, you know, if you assume that you've got your systems down where the systems failure would be very low is going to be radiation. I think this question was asked about risk, and we understand that fairly well. You have galactic cosmic radiation, very difficult to shield against, however it's not that hard. We understand that the main thing is the solar radiation, and it goes in a cycle. But also you can have a series of unpredicted flares. <br><br>If you go back in history, we were good on Apollo, but we were also lucky. After Apollo 8, a large flare occurred. And then in the last year we did the last two Apollo missions, Apollo 16 was in April of 1972, Apollo 17, the last one was in December. On August of 1972, one of the largest solar flares ever recorded erupted instantly even though we are trying to track and predict it. And had those two crewmen been on the surface, they would have received possibly up to a lethal dose of radiation. They might have made it back to the lunar module and to orbit, but they would have a fairly short life span. It is a risk, but there are ways to shield against it, and we will discuss that in just a few minutes. <br>. . .<br>The radiation effects and the shielding. We came up with adequate shielding around 16 grams per centimeter squared of water. And the best thing to negate the radiation coming in is really the hydrogen atom, and from this, the best thing is really water. And with that, that would stop all the solar flare and any secondary radiation that would come forward. <br>****<br>re: Cooling in a vacuum:<br>As with the 'cooling problem'. The astronauts suits were cooled with a system of tubes running thru an undergarment in which water was circulated, in proximate contact to a heat-exchanger on the back of the suit where a very small volume of water was sprayed that immediately froze in the low-pressure vacuum. Many HBs repeat the 'fact' that a vacuum is a perfect insulator -- but then, this ignores the well-known phenomenon of blackbody radiation -- every object radiates heat until equilibrium is reached. After all, the sun's great energy is radiated thru the expanse of space vacuum in the form of electrons and quantum particles vibrating at every frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum. (A more complete explanation is posted below).<br><br>Following info from:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.clavius.org/">www.clavius.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Re: As for the camera operation:<br>The Hasselblad cameras were standard 500/EL models specifically modified to be operated while wearing space gloves and to endure the lunar environment. The shutter release was a trigger on the pistol grip. Some of the astronauts reported accidentally taking a picture when they didn't want to because they held the pistol grip wrong from time to time. <br><br>The f-stop and focus controls were rings on the lens and didn't require any modification. They didn't require dexterity to operate them. <br><br>The shutter speed control had to be modified (enlarged) in order for someone in space gloves to operate it. <br><br>(NOTE: In addition, the camera's were often attached to a housing on the chest of the astronaut's spacesuit, from where the astronauts could operate the controls through practice and familiarity. Even then, the only photographs published were those that were correctly focused and exposed, and subsequently cropped to best effect.)<br><br>More info re: questions raised:<br>from: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>As for the moon-suits cooling system:<br>How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space. <br><br>This is true, to a point, however spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits where equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat. Water sprayed into a vacuum experiences a very rapid drop in pressure and, consequently, temperature. Hence, when a small amount of water was sprayed onto a cooling element on the rear of the spacesuit, its temperature dropped so much that it would immediately freeze onto the element. The cooling water of the spacesuit was then pumped through this element. The heat of the cooling water melted the ice, which then rapidly boiled off and carried into space the unwanted heat. <br><br>ALSO (from: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html">www.clavius.org/envheat.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> -- to reduce the problem of managing excess ambiant solar heat, lunar missions were planned for the approx. 100-hour lunar 'morning' when the sun's angle of incidence is near minimum, as opposed to the lunar 'noon'; Note: a lunar 'day' is about 28 earth-days long). -- Just as on earth, the temperatures at morning and evening on the moon are lower than at noon. This is because the sun strikes the surface at a more acute angle and therefore isn't as intense. The lunar landing sites and times were chosen so that the astronauts would be working there in the early morning before the temperature had risen to its hottest. This reduced the surface temperature at those sites. <br><br>The physics term for this phenomenon is "form factor for radiative heat transfer". Quite a mouthful. The meteorological term is "angle of insolation" and it's why we have seasons on earth. <br><br>Re: Primitive computers:<br>HB claim: The Apollo guidance computer had the equivalent computing power of today's kitchen appliances, far less than that required to go to the Moon. <br><br>Unlike general-purpose computers, the Apollo guidance computer had to perform only one task - guidance. Most of the number crunching was performed at Mission Control on several mainframe computers. The results were then transmitted to the onboard computer, which acted upon them. The Apollo guidance computer was capable of computing only a small number of navigation problems itself. Since the guidance computer had to run only one program, that program could be put in ROM, thus only a small amount of RAM was required to hold the temporary results of guidance calculations. <br><br>The hoax advocates tend to overrate the tasks performed by the onboard guidance computers of the 1960's. In fact, the Mercury spacecraft, 1961-63, flew into space without any onboard computer whatsoever, yet the trajectories were precisely controlled and the capsule was capable of fully automated control. <br><br>Re: Radiation<br>HB claim: To reach the Moon astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts, resulting in lethal doses of radiation. <br><br>This is a claim the hoax advocates often make, but it is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. 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. <br><br>The hoax advocates also make the mistake of limiting themselves to two-dimensional thinking. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator, therefore Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts. <br><br>For more information, please see The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon and Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>HB claim: Intense radiation from solar flares would have killed the Apollo astronauts in route to the Moon and back. <br><br>Solar flares were a NASA concern as well, but the radiation doses claimed by the hoax advocates are again greatly exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Although low-intensity solar flares are common, they posed no real threat to the astronauts. High-intensity solar flares could have endangered the astronauts' health, but these large eruptions are infrequent. Furthermore, there are statistical methods for determining the likelihood of a major flare during a given time interval. If NASA found an unacceptably high probability for a solar flare event during a scheduled flight, the mission would have been postponed. No large solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions and typical radiation doses received by the astronauts was very low. <br><br>Re: 'Untested' Lunar Modules:<br>How could the untested Lunar Module land flawlessly six times on the Moon when its prototype crashed on Earth during training? <br><br>The "prototype" to which the hoax advocates refer was not a prototype at all, but two classes of training vehicles known as the Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV) and the more advanced Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). These vehicles included a jet engine to support five-sixths of their airborne weight, a pair of rocket engines that simulated the LM's descent engine, and small jets that mimicked the LM's attitude control thrusters. The Apollo astronauts trained in the LLRV and LLTV to learn the skills necessary to maneuver the actual LM. During one test flight, Neil Armstrong was forced to eject when the LLRV's helium pressurization system for the steering jets failed, causing the LLRV to become unstable and crash. Despite this incident, the LLRV and LLTV flew hundreds of successful flights. <br><br>The LLRV and LLTV were very different from the LM and the "untested" LM was far from untested. Every component of the LM was tested over and over again during its development. Furthermore, the LM was tested in space unmanned during the Apollo 5 mission and manned during the Apollo 9 mission. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit and performed everything but the landing itself. The next test flight, Apollo 11, performed the first lunar landing. Testing continued during Apollo 12 as the ability of the LM to make a pinpoint landing was demonstrated. The LM flew successfully to the moon because of the hard work of thousands of workers over many years during the design, development and construction of the spacecraft. <br><br>HB claim: If the video footage of the Apollo astronauts is played at double normal speed, their motion appears quite normal, thus the images were faked by playing normal motion at half speed. <br><br>There's an easy explanation for this phenomenon. An object in free flight will follow a ballistic trajectory in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The only force acting on the object is gravity, which on Earth has an acceleration of 32.2 ft/s2. On the Moon gravity is much less, 5.33 ft/s2. If the ballistic flight of an object on the Moon is sped up by a factor of 2.46 it will mimic exactly ballistic motion on Earth, and vice versa. The 2X speed the hoax advocates claim is close to this 2.46 ratio, hence free flight motion looks "normal" because it is what our eyes and brains are accustomed to seeing. Other motion however, such as the movements of the astronauts' arms, looks very unnatural when speeded up. The hoax advocates deceivingly apply this explanation very selectively. If the Apollo footage is viewed in its entirety it becomes clear the 2X speed explanation cannot account for the observed motion. <br><br>The Apollo video is exactly what it appears to be, that is, man on the Moon. The convincing evidence is in the dust, which is particularly apparent in the video of the Lunar Rover. If this video were shot on Earth there would be clouds of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Rover's wheels, however there is no evidence of this. The dust falls immediately back to the surface as it would in an airless environment. <br><br>HB claim: NASA was able to perpetrate and maintain the hoax because the conspiracy required a relatively small number of people within the NASA "inner circle". <br><br>The hoax advocates make this claim yet, if all their assertions were true, the conspiracy they describe would be one of stupendous proportion involving literally thousands of individuals. I could cite numerous examples, but nothing illustrates this point better than the Moon rocks. Had the rock samples been collected by robotic landers, as some hoax advocates assert, then a program of huge scope would have been necessary. The design, manufacture, testing and launch of these spacecraft would have involved numerous subcontractors and suppliers, as well as thousands of workers. Since there is no supporting evidence for such a program, then the multitude of people involved in the project would have to be willing participants in the cover-up. (The same is true of the robotic landers that supposedly placed the laser reflectors on the Moon.) Other hoax advocates claim that the rock samples are manufactured fakes. I strenuously maintain the world's geologists could not possibly be deceived by fake moon rocks, thus the rocks are either authentic, or the geologists are lying. If they are lying, then the hoax must be a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of people in the scientific community. <br><br>HB claim: Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes. <br><br>Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here. <br><br>This photograph [see photo: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/photo04.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/photo04.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->], taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example [see photo: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/photo05.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/photo05.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->] the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows. <br><br>Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light. <br><br>This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image [see photo: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/photo06.htm">www.braeunig.us/space/photo06.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END-->] on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see. <br><br>Starman<br><br>PS: IMO, once in a while McGowen actually writes something informative and intriguing and a pleasure to read. The article cited was unfortunately typical of what I don't like about his stuff -- opportunistic and misleading, exploiting cheap-shot sensationalism. <p></p><i></i>
