Flags on the Moon

[Buffy]

When we look at the moonshots in the context of the time it took place in, i.e. in the '60s, there was such a race between the US and the USSR that one can make a rather solid case that there was a very good reason to hoax the whole thing to intimidate the USSR and gain a fair lead in the ideology race of the Cold War.

 

There was a very good and strong incentive to hoax it.

But the space race was also the reason it *couldn't* be hoaxed! The Soviets were in the *best* position to have data showing that it wasn't happening, and its pretty hard to believe that they wouldn't have blown the whistle if it wasn't so obviously true.

 

I realize you're just stick-poking slith, but on the other hand you're showing a facinating example of how people can rationalize denial of facts!

 

La, la, la, la, I can't hear you, la, la, la, la, :rolleyes:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

But the space race was also the reason it *couldn't* be hoaxed! The Soviets were in the *best* position to have data showing that it wasn't happening, and its pretty hard to believe that they wouldn't have blown the whistle if it wasn't so obviously true.

...which could, of course, also be spun to the hoaxter's benefit.

 

The Russkies were dependent on their Space People to tell them what was happening with the US space program, i.e. through spy shots of the assembly plants, launchpads, etc., and following the moon capsule with their radio dishes, etc. Let's say, for a second, that the moon shot didn't happen. Would it be to the Russian Space Agency's benefit to report it as such? The media was blowing the thing world-wide, on TV, print media, etc. So, the Russian Space Agency just tells their bosses that it did happen, and badabing badaboom, they have double their budget for the next ten years!

 

Saying it did happen, benefits the Spage Agency (scientists).

Saying it did not happen, only benefits the politicians.

 

The scientists did the reporting to government, so which option would they choose, if the shot didn't happen?

 

You know I don't believe all this hoax crap, they did go to the moon and blah blah blah, but it's a lot of fun to argue for the other side every now and then.

 

The Devil's Advocate,

Boerseun QC OBE VC Esq.

[Buffy]

...So, the Russian Space Agency just tells their bosses that it did happen, and badabing badaboom, they have double their budget for the next ten years!

 

Saying it did happen, benefits the Spage Agency (scientists).

Saying it did not happen, only benefits the politicians.

Well, they were stupid then, because what *actually* happened? Their budget got slashed so badly that the best they could do was build an unflyable copy of the space shuttle and keep sending cheese sandwiches to their increasingly stinky space station--that by the way was mostly paid for by *NASA* for "joint missions"....

 

Gosh, don'cha just hate it when reality gets in the way of a really good conspiracy theory?

 

The Vietnam War was fought over a bet that Howard Hughes lost to Aristotle Onassis, :rolleyes:

Buffy

 

B&B Debunkers, Inc. -- Snarking stupid conspiracies since 2005

[Tormod]

There was a very good and strong incentive to hoax it.

 

I would however argue that it would be near impossible to hoax it without being revealed by the Russians.

[Boerseun]

I would however argue that it would be near impossible to hoax it without being revealed by the Russians.

It could only have been revealed by the Russian scientists. Would it have been to their benefit to expose the moonshot as a hoax? Keeping in mind their budgets, and all...

[Tormod]

It could only have been revealed by the Russian scientists. Would it have been to their benefit to expose the moonshot as a hoax? Keeping in mind their budgets, and all...

 

It would have made their prime enemy ripe for extreme ridicule. Considering the Russians lost their manned spaceflight lead due to the moon landing, it was a big blow to them.

[silverslith]

I think the russians had neither the access to western media or the position to be seen as anything but sour grapes if they'd blown the whistle.

They considered it too dangerous to succeed due to the radiation problem and their politicians would have been suscpicious of that assumption without understanding of fact and the scientists had no media voice.

The shielding they had was basically transparent to protons, would likely have taken under 1% of their 15sv minimum dose.

 

Wiki' on Sievert effects:

Radiation poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

0.5–1 Sv (50–100 REM)

Mild radiation sickness with headache and increased risk of infection due to disruption of immunity cells. Temporary male sterility is possible.

 

 

[edit] 1–2 Sv (100–200 REM)

Light radiation poisoning, 10% fatality after 30 days (LD 10/30). Typical symptoms include mild to moderate nausea (50% probability at 2 Sv), with occasional vomiting, beginning 3 to 6 hours after irradiation and lasting for up to one day. This is followed by a 10 to 14 day latent phase, after which light symptoms like general illness and fatigue appear (50% probability at 2 Sv). The immune system is depressed, with convalescence extended and increased risk of infection. Temporary male sterility is common. Spontaneous abortion or stillbirth will occur in pregnant women.

 

 

[edit] 2–3 Sv (200–300 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 35% fatality after 30 days (LD 35/30). Nausea is common (100% at 3 Sv), with 50% risk of vomiting at 2.8 Sv. Symptoms onset at 1 to 6 hours after irradiation and last for 1 to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which the following symptoms appear: loss of hair all over the body (50% probability at 3 Sv), fatigue and general illness. There is a massive loss of leukocytes (white blood cells), greatly increasing the risk of infection. Permanent female sterility is possible. Convalescence takes one to several months.

 

 

[edit] 3–4 Sv (300–400 REM)

Severe radiation poisoning, 50% fatality after 30 days (LD 50/30). Other symptoms are similar to the 2–3 Sv dose, with uncontrollable bleeding in the mouth, under the skin and in the kidneys (50% probability at 4 Sv) after the latent phase.

 

 

[edit] 4–6 Sv (400–600 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, 60% fatality after 30 days (LD 60/30). Fatality increases from 60% at 4.5 Sv to 90% at 6 Sv (unless there is intense medical care). Symptoms start half an hour to two hours after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. After that, there is a 7 to 14 day latent phase, after which generally the same symptoms appear as with 3-4 Sv irradiation, with increased intensity. Female sterility is common at this point. Convalescence takes several months to a year. The primary causes of death (in general 2 to 12 weeks after irradiation) are infections and internal bleeding.

 

 

[edit] 6–10 Sv (600–1,000 REM)

Acute radiation poisoning, near 100% fatality after 14 days (LD 100/14). Survival depends on intense medical care. Bone marrow is nearly or completely destroyed, so a bone marrow transplant is required. Gastric and intestinal tissue are severely damaged. Symptoms start 15 to 30 minutes after irradiation and last for up to 2 days. Subsequently, there is a 5 to 10 day latent phase, after which the person dies of infection or internal bleeding. Recovery would take several years and probably would never be complete.

 

Devair Alves Ferreira received a dose of approximately 7.0 Sv (700 REM) during the Goiânia accident and survived, partially due to his fractionated exposure.

 

 

[edit] 10–50 Sv (1,000–5,000 REM)

 

The mouth of a man who has suffered a 10 to 20 Gy dose 21 days after the exposure, note that damage to normal skin, the lips and the tongue can be seenAcute radiation poisoning, 100% fatality after 7 days (LD 100/7). An exposure this high leads to spontaneous symptoms after 5 to 30 minutes. After powerful fatigue and immediate nausea caused by direct activation of chemical receptors in the brain by the irradiation, there is a period of several days of comparative well-being, called the latent (or "walking ghost") phase. After that, cell death in the gastric and intestinal tissue, causing massive diarrhoea, intestinal bleeding and loss of water, leads to water-electrolyte imbalance. Death sets in with delirium and coma due to breakdown of circulation. Death is currently inevitable; the only treatment that can be offered is pain therapy.

 

Louis Slotin was exposed to approximately 21 Sv in a criticality accident on 21 May 1946, and died nine days later on 30 May.

 

At this dose the skin can be damaged. Here is a photo of a man who received a 10 to 20 Gy gamma whole body dose as a result of an industrial accident. He died about 10 days after the photo was taken, about 30 days after the event.

[Tormod]

I think the russians had neither the access to western media or the position to be seen as anything but sour grapes if they'd blown the whistle.

 

You're joking, right? At best a strawman argument. The Russians knew perfectly well what was going on in the US, they had no need for "western media" (which their intelligence had access to anyway).

 

They considered it too dangerous to succeed due to the radiation problem

 

What do you base this assumption on?

 

It's okay that you refuse to believe the facts concerning the Apollo astronaut's trip to the moon. But the radiation sickness issues you throw up are simply not very interesting in light of whether passing through the Van Allen belt was deadly or not.

 

But I can keep throwing sources your way:

 

Clavius: Environment - radiation and the van allen belts

[Tormod]

The radiation doses the Apollo astronauts received were also recorded. They carried personal dosimeters during the entire trip.

 

More info here:

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO - RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Sec.2,Ch.3)

[silverslith]

The radiation doses the Apollo astronauts received were also recorded. They carried personal dosimeters during the entire trip.

 

More info here:

BIOMEDICAL RESULTS OF APOLLO - RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Sec.2,Ch.3)

 

Those links you just sent me on are a total load of horseradish. Pffft I mean:

The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against.

you'd need 6 inches of aluminium at least to halve the energy in them. They are more penetrating than gamma rays and not a lot less than neutrons. If you did halve their energy you might have the same sievert or rem value because they may give your body all of their energy rather than only part of it. Thats about the only statement on either page that has anything but hot air in it.

looking at the dose records on the chart they are not even giving us a measure for overall dose. Protons are not skin deep. This seems to be a common problem with charts showing astronaut dose. If it is rads its /100 grays and not modified by the appropriate Q modifier. In any case I'd call it proof they didn't go outside low earth orbit since my calculation of dose due to BASIC AVERAGE SOLAR WIND is 1500x more than the min and 9800x more than the max. (actually it means little because protons are full body dose not skin). By the way you are using the fallacy of false authority if you think just because Van Allen says something it must be true. I mean quoting a proton energy of 100Mev at 20000 per sqcm per second. most of the protons in the inner belt are under 20Mev and the outer one that traps the solar wind has 0.2 -1Mev protons- the most biologically effective at equal energy because they need a body thickness of flesh to stop. If you only count very rare high energy ones and ignore the rest then you can come up with a mild sounding figure like 20000 per cm/sec. Remember alpha and betas from nuclear reactions ~1Mev. Both belts have far more overall density than the solar wind that I've calculated for so far alone. The Magnetail is all the way to the moon and past it when the lit side is facing the earth as in the claimed lunar missions and this area is like a giant particle accelerator bouncing protons and electrons back and forth at high energy and density.

most of the radiation in the belts from nuclear tests? are they crazy? calculate how many protons are trapped by the cross section area of the earths field (6-12 earth diameters) in years at 350million per sqcm per second.

http://www.bu.edu/cism/cismdx/ref/Labs/2005_AFWA_ShortCourse/Lab04/refs//MagnetosphereStructure.pdf

The outer Van Allen belt has a maximum proton density out to about 4 – 5 RE, (16,000–20,000 km). It contains low-energy protons (200 keV to 1 MeV) of solar wind origin. Recall that protons and electrons from the solar wind diffuse across the magnetopause in the magnetotail, drift toward theplasma sheet, and accelerate earthward. On arrival from the plasmasheet, these particles are injected into the outer Van Allen belt. The protons are deflected westward by the earth’s magnetic field, and the electrons are deflected eastward. This net result causes the “ring current,” which is co-located with theouter Van Allen belt (shown on next page). The inner Van Allen belt has a maximum proton density out to about 1½ RE(5000 km). It is composed high-energy protons (up to hundreds of MeV) primarily of terrestrial origin. Cosmic rays strike the earth’s upper atmosphere, and ionize neutral atoms. The ions absorb the kinetic energy of thecosmic ray and follow magnetic field lines leading to the inner Van Allen belt. Since the inner belt is more dipole-shaped, particles can be trapped for hundreds of years. Unlike the outer belt, the particles of the inner belt co-rotate with the earth

 

[Tormod]

Those links you just sent me on are a total load of horseradish.

 

Please calm down and respect our rules.

 

In any case I'd call it proof they didn't go outside low earth orbit since my calculation of dose due to BASIC AVERAGE SOLAR WIND is 1500x more than the min and 9800x more than the max.

 

Yeah, I'd be happy to accept your calculation over those of reputable scientists any day.

 

By the way you are using the fallacy of false authority if you think just because Van Allen says something it must be true.

 

Because who says what? You are really on a limb here.

 

Your rebuttal carries no weight unless you can disprove what they claim using hard science. Your general outcries about bad science is ridiculous.

[Tormod]

you'd need 6 inches of aluminium at least to halve the energy in them.

 

You can start by proving this.

[silverslith]

This is a real eye opener to me. I'm wading through piles of studies that seem only published to misinform.

eg/

 

would seem useful until you see:

shows the prestorm distribution of the thermal ion concentration, the proton flux, 31 keV < E < 49 keV,

 

Which is this time protons of such low energy they are again VERY RARE.:eek2:

[silverslith]

You can start by proving this.

 

I thought I did earlier. Is there anything about "several feet of concrete" that you don't understand?:eek2:

 

Proton radiation more dangerous than once thought

At the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory, scientists have found that proton radiation is more damaging to cells than previously assumed - specifically, the cells' DNA. Since protons are the most abundant type of particle in deep space, this research may help scientists design spacecraft and spacesuits that can properly protect astronauts traveling far from Earth.

In deep space, protons are the most abundant type of charged particle. Therefore, before astronauts can safely travel far from Earth for long periods of time, it is important to know how protons affect cells — particularly the cells’ DNA. Now, at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, scientists have found that protons are more damaging to DNA than previously assumed. The work is published in the February 2006 edition of the journal Radiation Research.

 

“Scientists have been assuming that protons damage cells in a way similar to x-rays, but our results indicate that these assumptions have been wrong. The new data show that protons produce more potentially lethal double-strand breaks, a type of severe DNA damage, than other kinds of DNA damages,” said Brookhaven biologist Betsy Sutherland, the study’s lead researcher. “This means that scientists don’t really know how human DNA is affected by the most numerous particles in space and, as a result, do not know how to design the proper protection for astronauts.”

 

Of the various radiation types, protons, like x-rays and gamma rays, are classified as low linear energy transfer (LET), meaning they do not lose much energy as they pass through matter. Therefore, scientists have assumed that protons would damage biological systems in the same way as other forms of low LET radiation. But Sutherland and Megumi Hada found that the protons produced a spectrum of damages that is very similar to that of high-energy iron ions and other heavy charged particles.

 

In their study, they investigated the levels and kinds of multiple damages, called damage clusters, produced by high-energy radiation beams. Damage clusters are dangerous because they are potentially mutagenic and can produce cancers, or can be converted to double-strand breaks

[Qfwfq]

Because who says what?

He's referring to the claim that a famous rock band (although the name was slightly misspelt) built a stairway that goes up, up, up, right through the sky, all the way to heaven.

 

Hogwash, of course. It was only a dumb song and nothing more.

[Tormod]

He's referring to the claim that a famous rock band (although the name was slightly misspelt) built a stairway that goes up, up, up, right through the sky, all the way to heaven.

 

Hogwash, of course. It was only a dumb song and nothing more.

 

:eek2: Brilliant!

[Pyrotex]

I thought I did earlier. Is there anything about "several feet of concrete" that you don't understand?...

Do YOU understand that it is NOT necessary to stop all or even most radiation to assure the safety of an astronaut???

 

Radiation is not like a poison. Every ingested molecule of poison damages a person. Every proton or photon of gamma does NOT damage a person. What CAN cause damage is the radiation that is absorbed by the human body. I strongly suspect your data is the TOTAL radiation dose that would occur IF (!!!!) ALL of it were absorbed by the human body. This does NOT occur.

 

Sufficiently high-energy radiation goes through a person's body with such a low probability of absorption, that it is relatively harmless--in particular, protons. High energy stuff made of iron nuclei ARE dangerous, but they are also incredibly rare in cosmic rays. Sufficiently low-energy radiation is absorbed by outer clothing or the shell of the spaceship.

 

Cosmic rays (relativistic nuclei) can be absorbed by dense materials (such as aluminum or other metals) and cause secondary radiation such as x-rays and alpha particles. The latter can be deadly. This is why there was no radiation shielding as such on the Apollo vehicles. Better to be hit by the occassional cosmic ray then to be subjected to an elevated (and continuous) bombardment of secondary radiation. Cosmic rays are rarely stopped by light elements such as hydrogen or oxygen. Humans consist of mostly of water--so, there!

 

The only really dangerous radiation the astronauts would have encountered is the radiation that is intermediate in energy, and have a high enough flux. (rays per cm^2 per second) This occurs in the van Allen belt and in Coronal Mass Ejections from the Sun. As long as you spend only a few hours in the VAB and avoid the CME's, a quick trip to the moon and back will give you a rad-dose about the equivalent of 50 medical x-rays.

 

If YOUR data were correct, all the Apollo astronauts would have suffered some obvious degree of radiation poisoning. Or died within a few years of cancer. They did not. Case closed.