PDA

View Full Version : Isn't it possible for us all to be friends?



johnwitts
2002-May-03, 02:04 PM
From Aulis...

http://www.aulis.com/nasa-challenges.htm

Have they given up?

Johnno
2002-May-03, 02:14 PM
More like taking a breather and then coming back in a few weeks or months with "NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN EVIDENCE"

I'll bet my shorts on it.

DaveC
2002-May-03, 02:26 PM
I think what they are saying is that it's time we all acknowledged that the radiation issue raised by HBs about Apollo is a real barrier. They still can't seem to grasp that a long stay in deep space is different than a one week trip to the moon and back.

SpacedOut
2002-May-03, 02:45 PM
After reading the article several times I'm still not sure what their real motives are – On one hand they seem to acknowledge that Apollo was real by their emphasis of quote “demonstration of what we could do” from O’Keefe’s speech but then they seem to back peddle with the sentence “And we hope he doesn't mean it the way we think he might if that R&D does not work out!” about “engaging in fantasy”.

Don’t know what to think. If they change their stripes, what will they do with their unsold books and videos?

SpacedOut
2002-May-03, 02:49 PM
On the other hand - Dave - I wonder if this isn't the news release they emailed you about?

See this thread. (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1137&forum=3&start=25&35)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-05-03 10:50 ]</font>

Roy Batty
2002-May-03, 02:58 PM
No, the way I read it, it seems pretty clear they think the speech some kind of admission of guilt.. they're trying to emphasis the use of the word 'demonstration' to imply it was a hoax.
The mind boggles /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

DaveC
2002-May-03, 03:22 PM
I don't know if that's the release they were talking about 'cause they didn't indicate in their emails the subject matter - but the timing fits ("in the next few days").

I don't know what to make of it. I think I'll write them an email and ask if this means they are conceding that Dark Moon was wrong on the radiation issue. Let's see what happens.

ToSeek
2002-May-03, 03:23 PM
There was a character in a drama series that I used to watch who would frequently say, "I don't want to argue about this." What he meant was, "Stop disagreeing with me."

This sounds like the same sort of thing.

jrkeller
2002-May-03, 03:36 PM
After reading the article a couple of times, I think they may have shot themselves in the foot. The acknowledge that the ISS is in orbit and that the radiation outside Earth orbit is only twice. While that may pose a difficulty going to Mars in six months, it shouldn't be a problem for the less than two weeks in takes going to the moon. So by my reckoning the radiation argument goes away.

DaveC
2002-May-03, 04:00 PM
Here's the text of my email to Aulis. I'm still not clear on what they are saying in the essay:

"Aulis

I am assuming the above article is the one to which you referred in your last email to me. I have read the essay several times in an effort to understand what message you are trying to convey, and I must admit I am still not sure.

Are you saying that NASA's statement that deep space radiation is about twice that experienced by ISS astronauts means that a trip to the moon didn't pose the severe threat that Dark Moon implies (since astronauts stay on the ISS for months at a time with no observable ill effect)? On the other hand, you seem to be saying "we were right all along".

There is nothing really new in NASA's statements. It has been known for a long time that long-term exposure to deep space radiation poses a significant problem for manned space travel. I'm not clear on how the reiteration of this known reality could in any way prompt Hoax Believers and Apollo Believers to set aside their differences. It seems to me that the stated magnitude of deep-space radiation compared to near-earth radiation puts the final nail in the coffin of the argument that the radiation prohibited the Apollo missions. If that is what Aulis is conceding, perhaps there is an opportunity for believers and non believers to reach agreement on this one issue.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on where this statement fits vis-a-vis the position in Dark Moon."

The Bad Astronomer
2002-May-03, 04:02 PM
Percy claims the missions were faked based on faulty science regarding radiation. He claims the van Allen belts and the space beyond are far too deadly for Man to ever get through.

He then claims that the new NASA admin puts radiation on his list of dangers to overcome. Percy sees this as a vindication of what he has been claiming, and therefore he can rest momentarily.

This is, of course, complete garbage. What O'Keefe says has little bearing on Percy's claims, because Percy thinks the radiation is so bad you can't last 15 minutes in space. But O'Keefe is referring to long term exposure, like months and years, not days. Worse, on a long mission, the chance of having to survive a flare goes up. On the shorter Apollo missions, the chance of a flare was finite but deemed acceptable by NASA and, of course, the astronauts themselves. So the dangers from radiation are very real for a long mission, which is what O'Keefe means. However, radiation is still less of a problem than propulsion.

This page by Percy changes nothing, and indeed confirms my estimates of him.

JayUtah
2002-May-03, 04:26 PM
Two items: The psychological effects of radiation, and the physiological effects of radiation.

There is a standing challenge to Percy to compute the exposure of an Apollo astronaut using his theoretical basis. So far, nothing. Just a lot of scare tactics.

That's the psychological effect. See, people in technical fields or possessed of interest in technology have a scientifically correct understanding of radiation -- what it is, what causes it, how it affects things. The layman does not. The layman thinks of radiation in terms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Chernobyl. If you read about radiation control policy, you encounter the term "radiophobia" which is the layman's irrational fear of radiation and its supposed effects.

And so in my writings I refer to that as the Radiation Boogey Man. This is the image of radiation, intuitive to the layman, which the hoax believer conjures up to scare the reader into believing survival outside the Van Allen belts is impossible without encasing oneself in many feet of lead.

Physiologically you're worse off in the space station. If someone comes up to you and says, "I'll expose you to this much radiation 16 times a day for six months, or twice that much for four hours twice in your life, a week apart" which should you choose?

Without question you should choose the shorter, more intense exposure. Yes, the chance of physiological damage is greater per exposure with the brief exposures, but the important factor is the recovery time you would have afterwards away from radiation sources.

Constant low level radiation is more dangerous because it never gives the body a chance to recover and heal.

Of course the biggest argument, in my opinion, against Percy, and one he has never even addressed, much less rebutted, is the fact that commercial companies send stuff out into cislunar space all the time. At $300 million a pop, the customers -- mostly communications companies -- want their money's worth.

Now what data do you suppose these folks use for engineering those satellites designed to operate in cislunar space? Why, the very data collected by NASA before and during Apollo. It would be very hard for that data to be wrong, since many countries and much high-stakes private enterprise rely on it. And that's the data used to engineer the Apollo spacecraft. Hm.

DaveC
2002-May-03, 04:30 PM
BA, my take on it is the same as yours. I just can't imagine Percy ever admitting to being wrong - even when the proof of it is put right in his face - like the athletic feats on the moon that he said don't appear in any lunar footage.

Let's see how, or if, Aulis responds to my question.

jrkeller
2002-May-13, 04:11 PM
Here's a nice article on the Mars radiation experiment.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-odyssey-02f.html

LunarOrbit
2002-May-13, 04:23 PM
Sounds like another example of how HB's twist the meaning of something to support their beliefs.

Bart Sibrel did the same thing with a CNN report that stated the Van Allen Belt radiation "is more dangerous than previously believed".

Bart took that as proof that the VAB is far too deadly to pass through on the way to the moon. What CNN actually meant was that the radiation can be detected in lower orbits and could be more dangerous to astronauts in the ISS than they previously thought.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-05-13 12:29 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-May-13, 07:08 PM
Aulis answered my question - sort of. It seems that Percy and Bennett stand by what they say in Dark Moon and "If you understood that book, then you most certainly understood our recent postings." I wrote back and opined that if that's their position, I guess I didn't understand the book. They've gone silent since.

JayUtah
2002-May-13, 07:48 PM
Understanding their book is irrelevant. If you understand radiation, you understand the expressions of concern from NASA, and you further understand why Dark Moon is not based on any real knowledge of radiation.

David Percy and Mary Bennett are simply trying to conjure up the Radiation Boogey Man.

Chip
2002-May-13, 09:19 PM
On 2002-05-03 12:02, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
(A lot of good points, followed by:)"...However, radiation is still less of a problem than propulsion."


Especially propulsion for use on very long term missions. And certainly stuff that though almost feasible, is still on the border of science fiction propulsion.

It seems that from an engineering point of view, it would be much more feasible to design a light weight, pliable material that was highly resistant to long term radiation exposure, than it would be to design a 1/2 the velocity of c power plant - with built-in laser guided deflection sensors for avoiding collisions with space pebbles. Even at 1/2 the speed of light, it would still take many years to travel outside the solar system, but great for tooling around within it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

JayUtah
2002-May-13, 11:43 PM
It seems that from an engineering point of view, it would be much more feasible to design a light weight, pliable material that was highly resistant to long term radiation exposure ...

High density polyethylene. It's already being considered for installation on the ISS.

Roy Batty
2002-May-14, 03:41 PM
Looks like it's already being used:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=4684
Some more info on 'Poly-Brick' development:
http://srhp.jsc.nasa.gov/Newsletter/Volume1-2/Index.html

So.. 'Ripley, Alpha doesn't have bad radiation because shes just a piece of plastic' /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-05-14 11:43 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-May-14, 04:04 PM
To shield against particle radiation, the kind found in the Van Allen belts, you want compounds that include a dense matrix of low atomic weight molecules. High atomic weights will indeed stop the particles, but will generate x-rays in the process of doing so. (In fact, that's how x-rays are generated intentionally at the dentist's office.)

Hydrogen is an obvious choice for low atomic weight. And its ability to combine with carbon in about eight billion ways to form solids, including most of the poly-whatever-renes plastics, make it ideal for shielding against this type of radiation. HDPE is the stuff construction hardhats are made of, and lots of other stuff too.

Around your household you typically have polyethylene in a variety of densities, polypropylene (kinda like Tupperware), and polystyrene in a variety of densities ranging from plastic models to Styrofoam. Mom was right; I should have gone into plastics.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-05-14 12:05 ]</font>