PDA

View Full Version : Politics vs. Physics



Smaug
2002-Oct-31, 05:51 AM
You know, if you think about it, there's quite a bit of politics involved in the whole 'moon hoax' theory. For instance, it is said that the whole thing is set up because the Americans want to make themselves look more advanced. Einstein once said "Politics is harder than Physics"

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 07:39 AM
I think people are just trying to think up ideas as to why there would be a moon hoax just so they are correct. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif -Colt

g99
2002-Oct-31, 01:13 PM
I agree with you there colt. One of the big reasons for saying we are going was because up till then russia had done most of the important firsts in space. So we needed to do something. So they try to make up anything saying that the u.s. isn't as superior as we were technologically. It is a bunch of b.s. if i have ever heard it. I don't understand how we could of not gone to the moon, and again why would we lie about it? Thee are alot more endevores that are just as cool that we can lie about much easier. For example, going to mars or another planet. We can show footage and then say that they died coming back so it is impossible to interview if they really went. Now wouldn't that be easier than keeping the astronaughts alive?


I wouldn't be surprised if after the hoaxers realize it is impossible to convince people tht we didn't go to the moon, than they will start to say that we got the technology to go there from aliens that we captured and there was a 4th astronaught, a alien captain who steered the ship. You know come to think about it, there probobly is someone who believes that.

Karamoon
2002-Oct-31, 02:28 PM
You know, if you think about it, there's quite a bit of politics involved in the whole 'moon hoax' theory. For instance, it is said that the whole thing is set up because the Americans want to make themselves look more advanced.

Absolutely. The damage inflicted by the Soviets was huge. Pre-eminence would only come from a moon landing. And in 1967 that target looked increasingly doubtful. The situation was really quite intense.

Advisors, planners and president alike spoke candidly about the reason why they were going to the moon. To quote President Kennedy:
"The Soviet Union has made this a test of the systems, so that's why we're doing it.
So there is some logic behind the claim. This is seldom spoken about though.

Karamoon
2002-Oct-31, 02:45 PM
This is why I can sympathize with many people who approach this conspiracy theory the same way as I did.

In the 60's and 70's, there were more corrupt individuals than you could possibly shake a stick at; almost everyone seemed to be obsessed with Communism; and there were people on the fringe of power that were certifiably insane.

Did I think they were insane enough to risk the reputation of a nation by trying to fool the entire world?

Yes, yes I did.

Did that make me out to be a total moron?

Smaug
2002-Oct-31, 04:03 PM
No that doesn't make you a moron, and yes you are right there is some logic behind it. However I believe that to make their story more convincing, the theorists should focus on more compelling evidence than just speculation about world leaders lying to look cooler /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Irishman
2002-Oct-31, 08:18 PM
I just posted on this topic.

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2602&forum=3&0

Yes, politics was a very critical part of the space program, and the rationale for Apollo. The linked site in that thread specifically mentions how in the late 50s there was a 10 year plan for space created, and how just one year into it Congress was cutting the funding and jeopardizing the whole 10 year plan. This was a significant part of how the Russians beat us to those key milestones - we were hampered by the funding not following the plan. And then Kennedy reversed that trend.

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 08:48 PM
If any of you have ever really looked at the Russians' attempt to get to the moon, I don't think they ever got beyond a working model of their lander (their lander is wierd looking..). I will find the link I have about it when I get home, just for your viewing displeasure. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif -Colt

Karamoon
2002-Oct-31, 09:00 PM
This was a significant part of how the Russians beat us to those key milestones - we were hampered by the funding not following the plan. And then Kennedy reversed that trend.

My understanding is that the damage was really done in the 1950's, through inter-service bickering and rivalry, aided by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's reluctance to throw every available resource at the Space Race.

In 1957, Wernher von Braun commented:
"About a year ago I saw a compilation of all guided missiles projects, which--at one time or another--had been activated in this country since 1945. I doubt if you will believe it, but the total figure was 119 different guided missile projects!"
Compare that to the Soviets, who got excellent mileage from their program and whose efforts were initially well-focused. Once they attained the ability to lift substantially heavier payloads, funding or no funding, the United States could do little but suffer the indignity as each "first" fell to the Soviet Union.

Karamoon
2002-Oct-31, 09:09 PM
If any of you have ever really looked at the Russians' attempt to get to the moon,

Yes, their program is fascinating. They were obsessed about safety and they had planned to place a backup lander on the surface of the moon first, have two roving Lunakhod vehicles check it out to see if it was operational, then they would proceed and dispatch cosmonauts down in a second lander. If the first lander failed on ascent, they would exit the dysfunctional lander and labor on over to the second lander and try their luck in that. It was all very professional.

overrated
2002-Nov-01, 01:52 AM
I wouldn't say they were obsessed with safety by any means. Witness their means of putting three cosmonauts in space (a first): They removed the ejection seats from a Vostok to fit the extra crewmember. http://www.astronautix.com/flights/voskhod1.htm

The Soviets were just as interested in upstaging the U.S. as the U.S. was interested in catching up. The difference is that the U.S. spent a WHOLE lot more money on its space program and didn't have several design bureaus working on completely different approaches to the same problem.

Karamoon
2002-Nov-01, 04:06 AM
I wouldn't say they were obsessed with safety by any means. Witness their means of putting three cosmonauts in space

Yes, very true. There are a number of other instances where they were just as reckless but, as always, covered it up after the fact. But, in relation to their manned lunar landing program, the Soviets were very concerned about safety. I would say that this was because here in particular, they would be operating in full view of the watching world, and I think they understood and appreciated the fact that a screw-up on the lunar surface would cost them far more prestige than they had so far gained through previous space exploits. They definitely wanted a reasonable guarantee of bringing their boys back home alive, as their plans make clear.

If there were any corpses abandoned on the surface then I don't think anyone could look at the moon in the same way ever again. Amongst many other things, it would be a constant reminder of our immaturity; a total and enduring national embarrassment.

Rx
2002-Nov-01, 05:38 AM
Russian technology and Safety?
No way. They had about 1/3 of the subs with nukes waiting in cue to get repairs at any time. They had no problem just dumping waste anytime anywhere.

As to radiation during space travel, this site is more scientific than "Bad Astromomy" attempt to "debunk" the hoax.
http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
If someone is going to "debumk" some of these claims that valid research has indicated otherwise, I would have expected better references and logic.

I use to beleive that man did walk on the moon. Just the radiation claims alone along with some lame explanation, discarding the recorded solar activity at that time has me wondering why more serious thought is not given to the hoax. The Fox show was just a "show" like ... the nightly news. They put on the news or a show to make money.

So get off of the Fox thing and talk research and facts.

Peter B
2002-Nov-01, 06:05 AM
Hi Rx, and welcome to the BABB.

I'm no expert on the business of the Van Allen Radiation Belts, but I can highly recommend Jay Utah's http://www.clavius.org site. It has a section which deals in considerable detail with the issue of radiation.

In summary:

1. The main danger was high energy particles in the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which are best guarded against with light material such as foam, not metal.

2. The trajectory of the Moon-bound Apollo missions travelled through only a narrow section of the Belts, minimising the astronauts' exposure.

3. The other issues raised on the site you link to are also covered in sites such as this one and Clavius.

Colt
2002-Nov-01, 06:51 AM
Here is a great site about Russian space endeavors, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/.

And specifically the Russian's Lunar module, http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lk.html.

I finally remembered where I saw the original picture for the crater base. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar_base.html On the right, third one down. Looks more like a tent stuck over a ditch though. : -Colt

darrel_2000
2002-Nov-01, 06:46 PM
this site is more scientific than "Bad Astromomy" attempt to "debunk" the hoax

Briefly quoting numerous scientific articles and drawing simplistic conclusions from them is not particularly scientific. You simply cannot deal with an issue as complicated as this one in roughly 3 pages of text. The BAís response was intentionally non-technical, because the issue is very technical. He did link to more technical discussions, although I think a full technical analysis would be akin to a sleeping pill for most people. And that is the heart of the problem, overly complicated issues donít work well in our society with our 30 second sound-byte tolerance.
Who is David Wozney anyway? Why do you accept his interpretations and conclusions over the virtually unanimous opinion of the scientific community on what is indisputably a scientific question?

why more serious thought is not given to the hoax

My guess (and I really donít mean this in a mean way) is that as far as I can tell, there are few serious minds actively propagating the hoax. This article is an example, it is not a serious scientific study, it is a series of quotes with some simplistic derivations attached.
There was, however, a tremendous amount of serious thought that went into getting to the moon in the first place.

(From the article)

If it is a threat then why were not animal experiments beyond the Van Allen belts done first?

The NASA scientists did far more detailed experiments that actually mapped the belts and measured radiation levels, rather than simply releasing an animal to see if it died. This seems reasonable and appropriate to me, and is far more useful.

How were the Apollo astronauts protected against these deadly energetic particles and solar flares?

They werenít often extra-vehicular, which is the risk being talked about here.

Why would NASA subject people to this kind of risk?
Why would NASA proceed with Apollo 17 just after the August 1972 event and risk astronauts' lives?

There are lots of people who voluntarily engage in very risky occupations, or even hobbies. How many people have died just trying to climb Mount Everest? Test pilots are at the top of this list. The astronauts knew the risks, and accepted them.

How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the public can only be exposed to 0.5 rems per year?

Bad calculation, check out http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html for more details. Or Jay can reiterate his points here if he feels so inclined. He deals with several of Mr. Wozneyís contentions.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: darrel_2000 on 2002-11-01 13:48 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Nov-01, 10:06 PM
The statement "There could be as many as 15 solar flares per day with detectable x-rays during solar max." doesn't mean the same thing as "Fifteen solar flares per day, with deadly radiation levels will occur during a solar max." I think Rx has read the material that way.

I don't accept much of what comes out of Rene's "self taught" version of physics. His book selectively picks four solar flare events as examples. Why didn't he provide data on the hundreds of them that must have occurred over the period he examined (at least back to 1958).

How many of the 15 per day aren't directed at Earth?

overrated
2002-Nov-01, 10:21 PM
Another thought on the Russian lunar program: Their biggest problem was a booster (the N-1) that didn't work. Never. Four attempted launches, four big explosions. The didn't want to use high-energy cryogenic fuels (H2, for example), so they used LOX and kerosene. And to worsen matters, they didn't have any engines powerful enough to do the job... so they put 30 ENGINES on the N-1's first stage. 30! With that complicated of a setup, the chances of something failing were pretty darn high. And fail they did. That was the only booster design the Russians had that could launch their lunar landing payload into a translunar trajectory. So they were stuck.

On the radiation thing... Rx, why do you find the explanations for why the astronauts weren't fried unbelievable?

Irishman
2002-Nov-02, 05:43 AM
Karamoon said:

My understanding is that the damage was really done in the 1950's, through inter-service bickering and rivalry, aided by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's reluctance to throw every available resource at the Space Race.

Yes, that is what I meant to convey - the damage occurred in the 50s.

Rx, the quotes on the linked page are correct, but they are out of context, over-extended, misrepresented, and misinterpreted.

For example, the first quote on the page:

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

First, it says the Geiger counter was choked with radiation thousands of times larger than it was designed to detect. What it does not state anywhere is just how high that was. It assumes it was a standard Geiger counter. Was it? Maybe it wasn't a Geiger counter, but some other type of dosimeter. Next is a clearly hyperbolic claim that has no justification. The Van Allen Belts are concetrations of radiation where the magnetic field collects the high energy particles, and space beyond the belts is not a constant high radiation field.

Similarly, one of the quotes describes the radiation and lists several things it does, including "it is also a threat to the astronauts". What it does not do is quantify that threat. How long must they be exposed? What types of protection can the astronauts use? Showering in your bathroom is a threat - you could slip, fall, hit your head, and drown. Crossing the street is a threat - hit and run accidents happen fairly frequently, to listen to the news. Heck, there's a threat you could get struck by lightning. In this excerpt, the description as a threat is totally meaningless, because there's no context and no description of the extent and quality of the threat. And then is the vapid question why didn't they launch animals into space to test the effects. Like that's the only way to determine what is beyond the Van Allen belts. It completely ignores the testing that was done using Geiger counters and radiation dosimeters and the like. Also completely ignores any data collected on the ground on the effects of radiation exposure, both on animals as well as human exposures. The fact that they didn't launch animals into space is somehow supposed to mean that the Van Allen belts and the environment beyond were not thoroughly tested and evaluated, and radiation wasn't methodically studied.

The rest of the page is more in the same vein.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Nov-02, 01:30 PM
On 2002-11-01 13:46, darrel_2000 wrote:
And that is the heart of the problem, overly complicated issues donít work well in our society with our 30 second sound-byte tolerance.
Can I quote you on that?

Colt
2002-Nov-02, 10:20 PM
On 2002-11-01 17:21, overrated wrote:
Another thought on the Russian lunar program: Their biggest problem was a booster (the N-1) that didn't work. Never. Four attempted launches, four big explosions. The didn't want to use high-energy cryogenic fuels (H2, for example), so they used LOX and kerosene. And to worsen matters, they didn't have any engines powerful enough to do the job... so they put 30 ENGINES on the N-1's first stage. 30! With that complicated of a setup, the chances of something failing were pretty darn high. And fail they did. That was the only booster design the Russians had that could launch their lunar landing payload into a translunar trajectory. So they were stuck.

On the radiation thing... Rx, why do you find the explanations for why the astronauts weren't fried unbelievable?



Yep, the reason for this was that they thought that if only one of these small engines would fail, they would switch of the it's counterpart also and their shutdown would not affect it that much. They even developed a program called KROG or something to control it. -Colt

johnwitts
2002-Nov-03, 12:04 AM
Didn't one of the unmanned Saturn V launches lose two outboard engines on it's second stage? And I think they were adjacent engines, not opposite engines. The second stage just burned longer because there was more fuel left for the other three engines. Everyone was surprised it still flew. They only let it continue because it was unmanned, to see what would happen, instead of aborting. So I don't think the loss of one of 30 engines on the Russian booster would have caused too much of a headache. I'm sure the boosters failed for other reasons.

Kaptain K
2002-Nov-03, 12:18 AM
...I don't think the loss of one of 30 engines on the Russian booster would have caused too much of a headache...
Yeah, if one of the engines simply shuts down - no problem. But, if one of those engines blows up, it takes out the rest.

roidspop
2002-Nov-03, 12:18 AM
So I don't think the loss of one of 30 engines on the Russian booster would have caused too much of a headache. I'm sure the boosters failed for other reasons.


I found this account: http://www.moonrace2001.org/n1_history.shtml

overrated
2002-Nov-03, 01:20 AM
So I don't think the loss of one of 30 engines on the Russian booster would have caused too much of a headache. I'm sure the boosters failed for other reasons.


The problem wasn't so much that an engine might shut down; it was more that the whole 30-engine setup was so complicated that the odds of something failing were much higher. And in all four N-1 launches, something failed--spectacularly.

johnwitts
2002-Nov-03, 01:37 AM
From http://www.moonrace2001.org/sv_history.shtml

The second Saturn V did not fly so smoothly. For about 10 seconds near the end of its bum, the first stage underwent "pogo" vibrations so severe that they could have injured astronauts with 10 g accelerations. As soon as the pogo oscillations cleared up, a section of the LM shroud fell free. During the second stage bum, two of the five J-2 engines shut down prematurely. To the surprise and delight of NASA engineers, the vehicle didn't lose control. But the loss of thrust sent the S-lVB pointing in unexpected directions as it fought the with trajectory of the vehicle. At the moment of burnout, it was in fact pointing backwards. While the third stage was able to salvage the mission and place the Apollo spacecraft in orbit, it refused to restart later in the flight.

The very next Saturn V launched was Apollo 8 which sent Borman, Lovell and Anders to the Moon for Christmas. Those guys had guts.

Donnie B.
2002-Nov-03, 02:06 AM
On 2002-11-02 20:37, johnwitts wrote:
The very next Saturn V launched was Apollo 8 which sent Borman, Lovell and Anders to the Moon for Christmas. Those guys had guts.

Yes, they did. But they also knew that the problems had been diagnosed, fully understood, and corrected. Knowledge can be a big help, intestinal-fortitude-wise.

johnwitts
2002-Nov-03, 03:02 AM
But surely you'd still want to see the 'fixes' fly before strapping yourself in? How could they be sure that fixes for the problems didn't just create new problems? Them guys had guts.

Peter B
2002-Nov-03, 03:41 PM
On 2002-11-02 19:04, johnwitts wrote:
Didn't one of the unmanned Saturn V launches lose two outboard engines on it's second stage? And I think they were adjacent engines, not opposite engines. The second stage just burned longer because there was more fuel left for the other three engines. Everyone was surprised it still flew. They only let it continue because it was unmanned, to see what would happen, instead of aborting.

Quite correct, they were adjacent engines. According to Murray and Cox in "Apollo: The Race to the Moon", preliminary analysis of such a failure was that the stack would tumble and break up. But as it happened, everything sort of hung together.

Irishman
2002-Nov-03, 04:34 PM
One more comment for Rx...

The site you point out quotes many documents, a lot of them from NASA sites. So the same organization that says it went to the moon says that astronauts cannot go to the moon? That seems awfully suspicious. Whenever you see a quote from someone that appears to contradict a position they are known for having, that should make you think twice about the person citing the quote, and whether they are giving you all the information around it. For example, Stephen J. Gould was a strong evolution advocate. He just had a theory for evolution working somewhat differently than conventionally held (punctuated equilibrium). If you were to see a creationist cite SJG as saying, "Evolution just doesn't work that way," as proof that evolution is incorrect, you should immediately think something is fishy with that creationist. It's the same thing.

Moose
2002-Nov-04, 12:45 PM
On 2002-11-02 22:02, johnwitts wrote:
But surely you'd still want to see the 'fixes' fly before strapping yourself in? How could they be sure that fixes for the problems didn't just create new problems? Them guys had guts.



Anybody willing to strap that much propellant on their backsides and then light the fuse... well either they have guts to spare or they're completely nuts. Or both. 8^)