Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Will some of you at least do your homework before chiming in?
Read a few of the former post, look at some of the reasons given...
Don't chime in until you can explain to me what the Van Allen radiation belt is...
And then after learning what it is, tell me how you think man or any living orginism, can with stand the radioactive particles in this belt and in deep space...
Take time to read, and understand why others may feel a certain way...if we constantly leap frog each others points or issues without addressing them, than the conversation goes nowhere and fails to educate...
Look up Van Allen radiation belt...
Then you'll be better able to carry on this conversation...I linked it on post 19...
Once you've addressed that, then we can move on to next point of skepticism, if there is any...
The inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts of concentrated particles are vital parts of the Earth's active mechanics, governed or influenced and held in place by the planet's magnetosphere. The Van Allen belts are not necessarily a vital factor for space travel. What IS important for long periods of space travel is shielding from intense radiation carried by solar flares, as well as gamma radiation emitted from outside the solar system. The question is how much shielding is required for space travel over long periods of time. That's what we hope to learn from the data received over time from the RAD inside the MSL "Curiosity".
This is kind of shifting the subject of the thread which is the question of whether or not man really landed on the Moon. The surface of the Moon itself is radioactive which astronauts were exposed to. There's no question that it presents a real danger that needs an effective solution to prevent or reduce that danger. The astronauts who went to the Moon were willing to accept such risks. So do astronauts today. Radioactive Moon - NASA Science
Let's take a brief peek back at the past. The primary purpose of going to the Moon wasn't purely a scientific mission. During the cold war, the US and the USSR were engaged in what was called the "Space Race" in an effort to seek a tactical military advantage. The USSR had launched the first proto-cmmunication satellite, Sputnik, in the 50's. The US later launched Telstar. The Soviets again gained another first by launching the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin. That was followed by the US by sending Alan Shepard. The US gained a significant lead in the "Space Race" by sending the first astronauts to the Moon.
Nearly all US astronauts from the Mecury, Gemini and Apollo missions were military test pilots, including those who landed on the Moon. The exception was Harrison Schmidt, who was a geologist and had never been a member of the armed forces. The rest had no background in science. It wasn't until the space station and shuttle missions that more scientists were selected as astronauts. The point is that the moon landings were primarily for bragging rights just to show it could be done, and secondarily to collect lunar rock samples to be returned to Earth for study. The military is still actively involved in space programs, but scientists are the ones getting the most attention. Probably the biggest reason for the military's involvement in the space programs is probably related to its vast contribution in funding. In fact, we might not even have much a space program, other than looking through telescopes, if it hadn't been for the military's interest in developing rockets based on the German V2 rockets.
Back to the question, did people actually land on the Moon? Yes, they sure did. In those days, it was a dangerous and risky, and it still is. Today, we have a better understanding about some of the dangers, but there is still a lot more to learn. It's because we're better aware of the risks involved in space exploration that we know we need to develop better ways to protect astronauts that may land on the Moon, travel longer distances in space to the asteroids or Mars, and beyond.
Some people seem to think the exploration of space is similar to early explorers who traveled across the oceans. Space is very different. Seafarers at least had access to food (fish) and air. They were protected. With space travel, we have to take everything necessary for survival along with us. If we manage to establish bases on the Moon, it's conceivable that necessities such as food, water and air could be sent from the Earth. With regard to a mission to the surface of Mars, there's no doubt supplies will have to be taken along, but we will also have to develop ways to provide protection as well as produce the necessities to survive for up to a year on the planet. We now know there is water on both the Moon and Mars, but we have to develop ways to get to it, extract it, and make it usable. It's very possible we can do that, but right now, we still have to proceed in baby steps, one step at a time, to be sure such a venture can be successful and that the astronauts can be safely returned to the Earth. It's very different than crossing the ocean. There are very brilliant minds working on such issues, but it will take time to develop proven solutions. The biggest stumbling block that I can see at the present time is the economics and politics to do it. Personally, I think an international venture is probably the best way to go about it.
As for visual proof of the landers and rovers on the Moon, I think we'll eventually see much better images of these artifacts in the not too distant future. The problem is that even with such images, there will still be the usual assortment of nay-sayers who will claim the images are faked. All I can say to that is tough. No matter what lengths may be taken to show the evidence, there are people who still won't accept it, short of them actually traveling to the Moon to see for themselves. I say it's best to disregard the howlers and keep moving forward.
The inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts of concentrated particles are vital parts of the Earth's active mechanics, governed or influenced and held in place by the planet's magnetosphere. The Van Allen belts are not necessarily a vital factor for space travel. What IS important for long periods of space travel is shielding from intense radiation carried by solar flares, as well as gamma radiation emitted from outside the solar system. The question is how much shielding is required for space travel over long periods of time. That's what we hope to learn from the data received over time from the RAD inside the MSL "Curiosity".
This is kind of shifting the subject of the thread which is the question of whether or not man really landed on the Moon. The surface of the Moon itself is radioactive which astronauts were exposed to. There's no question that it presents a real danger that needs an effective solution to prevent or reduce that danger. The astronauts who went to the Moon were willing to accept such risks. So do astronauts today. Radioactive Moon - NASA Science
Let's take a brief peek back at the past. The primary purpose of going to the Moon wasn't purely a scientific mission. During the cold war, the US and the USSR were engaged in what was called the "Space Race" in an effort to seek a tactical military advantage. The USSR had launched the first proto-cmmunication satellite, Sputnik, in the 50's. The US later launched Telstar. The Soviets again gained another first by launching the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin. That was followed by the US by sending Alan Shepard. The US gained a significant lead in the "Space Race" by sending the first astronauts to the Moon.
Nearly all US astronauts from the Mecury, Gemini and Apollo missions were military test pilots, including those who landed on the Moon. The exception was Harrison Schmidt, who was a geologist and had never been a member of the armed forces. The rest had no background in science. It wasn't until the space station and shuttle missions that more scientists were selected as astronauts. The point is that the moon landings were primarily for bragging rights just to show it could be done, and secondarily to collect lunar rock samples to be returned to Earth for study. The military is still actively involved in space programs, but scientists are the ones getting the most attention. Probably the biggest reason for the military's involvement in the space programs is probably related to its vast contribution in funding. In fact, we might not even have much a space program, other than looking through telescopes, if it hadn't been for the military's interest in developing rockets based on the German V2 rockets.
Back to the question, did people actually land on the Moon? Yes, they sure did. In those days, it was a dangerous and risky, and it still is. Today, we have a better understanding about some of the dangers, but there is still a lot more to learn. It's because we're better aware of the risks involved in space exploration that we know we need to develop better ways to protect astronauts that may land on the Moon, travel longer distances in space to the asteroids or Mars, and beyond.
Some people seem to think the exploration of space is similar to early explorers who traveled across the oceans. Space is very different. Seafarers at least had access to food (fish) and air. They were protected. With space travel, we have to take everything necessary for survival along with us. If we manage to establish bases on the Moon, it's conceivable that necessities such as food, water and air could be sent from the Earth. With regard to a mission to the surface of Mars, there's no doubt supplies will have to be taken along, but we will also have to develop ways to provide protection as well as produce the necessities to survive for up to a year on the planet. We now know there is water on both the Moon and Mars, but we have to develop ways to get to it, extract it, and make it usable. It's very possible we can do that, but right now, we still have to proceed in baby steps, one step at a time, to be sure such a venture can be successful and that the astronauts can be safely returned to the Earth. It's very different than crossing the ocean. There are very brilliant minds working on such issues, but it will take time to develop proven solutions. The biggest stumbling block that I can see at the present time is the economics and politics to do it. Personally, I think an international venture is probably the best way to go about it.
As for visual proof of the landers and rovers on the Moon, I think we'll eventually see much better images of these artifacts in the not too distant future. The problem is that even with such images, there will still be the usual assortment of nay-sayers who will claim the images are faked. All I can say to that is tough. No matter what lengths may be taken to show the evidence, there are people who still won't accept it, short of them actually traveling to the Moon to see for themselves. I say it's best to disregard the howlers and keep moving forward.
Ladies and Gentlement...now this is a model response....
They did not 'leap frog' the issue of question....instead they acknowledged it, and by doing so showed or demonstrated how indeed it could be a real issue of concern with many...radiation is very tangible...
Then they went on to explain how such a road block could possibly be over come or dealt with...
And that is for readers to decide on their own...
Also, they did not 'personalize' their response...
No personal 'jab's at the OP's 'intent' or motive...instead they kept it clean...
As a result...they have helped to educate future readers...regardless of what side of the issue they're on...
And that's what these exchanges should be about, when done right, tough questions should produce quality answers...
Now NightBazaar gave me some things to think about and consider.
It's more easy for me to listen and consider what he's expressing when I don't have to filter through 'junk'...
Doesn't mean I have to go along with it, or blindly swallow it, but they have presented it in a way many can understand...
That's what a true teacher does, they're able to present 'facts' as they see them, with their own emotions removed from presentation...
Scientist, of all people, should not be overly emotional over any issue...cause emotions, or to many, raises flags...
Now it will be my job to find out just what acceptable radiation levels are before it effects the health of a astronaut...and how long would it take for these levels to be exceeded in space...
I do believe radiation levels never go down...once your made radioactive...I believe it stays at that level...so you can't constantly be re-exposed or else...
But again...I'll have to do more research on that...
Amazing, this is the only poll I've ever seen on C-D where 100% of the poll takers agree.
I like the way the OP started with he/she/it needed visual proof man landed on the moon and when that was presented went off on a tangent about acceptable radiation levels and tough questions had to be answered.
The only tough question that has to be answered IMO is why the OP thinks radiation is something that has to be discussed yet again.
I realize that the OP will have to do some more research into this but...
T&S, you think you should open a different thread on the hazards of radiation now that you have been provided with visual proof of the remnants of the moon buggy and other lunar garbage on the surface of the moon?
Um something tells me that if Nasa released orbiter images of the lunar landing sites, you would just call them photoshoped anyway. Face it. You've already made up your mind and no amount of proof is going to satisfy you short of getting in a rocket and going to see the lunar sites first hand. Mythbusters did an entire episode dedicated to this single topic about three years ago and proved without a doubt that we went to the moon. They simulated lunar gravity in zero G airplanes then matched them to the Nasa footage, had access to Nasa facilities, and even shot a laser to the lunar reflector left by Apollo 15 (it bounces back and you can see a clear spike on the computer monitor) amongst other things. However, I doubt it'll convince you.
To quote the show, "We went there. We did that. Get over it."
That was my favorite series on Mythbusters. One good thing about refuting conspiracy theories is that it makes you learn a lot of interesting things you didn't know before.
Will some of you at least do your homework before chiming in?
Gladly, I have, and I invite you to do the same.
Quote:
Don't chime in until you can explain to me what the Van Allen radiation belt is...
And then after learning what it is, tell me how you think man or any living orginism, can with stand the radioactive particles in this belt and in deep space...
Aaaand we're off to a bad start. In the absence of a solar flare, the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts are considerably higher than those in "deep space".
Deep spsace firts: Cislunar space has a background radiation of about 1.0 millirem/hr, so for a J-type mission (those were the longest), we're looking at 300 hours of exposure, so... 0.3 rem. In other words, nothing. And that's if we assume the astronauts ride naked on the outside of the capsule, which goes against established NASA EVA procedure.
Quote:
Once you've addressed that, then we can move on to next point of skepticism, if there is any...
Well, as luck would have, we had bona fide rocket scientists on the case. The belts were discovered in 1958, so there was a bit of time to figure them out. The trick, as for all other radiation risks, is to minimize exposure time, find the area with the lowest flux, and shield if needed.
It's easy to minimize exposure time when traveling to the moon - you're moving at a fairly good clip as it is. The trajectories took the capsule and crew through the belts in about 4 hours.
As for reducing flux, the belts aren't perfectly aligned with Equator, they're skewed. Timing departure from Earth orbit to put the Apollo stack through the belts at their lowest intensity is - well, not trivial, but doable.
Finally, the CM was a fairly heavy capsule (very much unlike the LM, which was flimsy) and the instrumentation etc. surrounding the astronauts helped shield as well.
In the final analysis, it worked. All astronauts carried dosimeters, and the crafts themselves had radiation detection gear. They received between 0.16 and 1.14 rads.
All spacefaring nations who've gone beyond LEO have had the opportunity to check the radiation levels and cry foul. None have done so.
Oh, and Dr. James Van Allen himself has made fun of the idea that the belts would mean instant death. They're a risk factor, you engineer for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
