View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 31 Dec 2012, 23:00

I think it is more interesting that NASA has said that the risks now are too great to enter deep space, but they didn't think the risk was too great during the Apollo missions. This even though Van Allen has changed his tune to state the risks from that are less now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57






Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 23:36

Misha wrote:Arouet and Really. Are you guys satisfied with NASA's explanation and risk analysis of the Apollo radiation question? Really, you posted that "solar flares are unpredictable" and yet we have had eight missions (off the top of my head) to the moon without one astronaut having at least one complication do to radiation that I know of. Keep in mind that the Apollo missions took place in and around the solar maximum which occurs every eleven years. You guys can find the Apollo/Solar maximum information for clarity.


First of all, I am just at the beginning of research into this issue, so I don't have firm opinions on any of it.

I'm pretty confident that every astronaut knows there is a pretty significant non-zero chance that they may not come back from any particular mission. I know that the astronauts had monitors on them gaging the amount of radiation they were exposed to. From what I gather so far, none reported any readings that would suggest dnagerous levels. Now, its possible they had some dangerous readings that haven't come to light, but I don't think we can assume that.

From what I gather from my prelimnary reading is that while true that solar falres are unpredictable over the long term, there is a few days notice for a major flare. If there had been that notice betfore the launch it would have been cancelled. The risk was limited to the last few days of the launch and even then the risk was low that there would be such a flare and lower still that it would be directionally pointed towards the astronauts.

My preliminary reading on the van allen belt indiactes that the radiation is not constant throughout it and it is possible to navigate through the lesser dense regions of the belt, minimizing exposure. My undrstanding is that is what was done.

Again, this is just to frame the issue, since what I've written is not sourced. I thnk it is important to frame these issues. It is too easy to just talk about this issue as if there are no subtleties to it.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 23:38

The23rdman wrote:I think it is more interesting that NASA has said that the risks now are too great to enter deep space, but they didn't think the risk was too great during the Apollo missions. This even though Van Allen has changed his tune to state the risks from that are less now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Can you post some specific statements? The context is important here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 31 Dec 2012, 23:43

The link Sydner posted that started the moon hoax debate had a quote from NASA... (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday. I'll admit I don't know how reliable the source was.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 23:52

Misha wrote:Thanks, Really. However, what I am looking for is any PUBLIC reference by NASA during the Apollo missions concerning radiation exposure of the astronauts. For example, do we have any news footage of say a Walter Cronkite talking about radiation dangers to the Apollo astronauts?

That doesn't matter because this was a Cold War race to beat the Soviets in technical and political prowess. Do you understand the political motivations the United States had during the 1960's to put a man on the Moon ? At the bottom of this reply I've included part of the speech plus a link too read the rest of President Kennedy's speech that is the impetus for the manned Moon missions. The soviets beat us by putting a satellite into earth orbit so too put it as bluntly as possible the thinking at the time was we weren't going to let the god damn pinko commies beat us to the Moon. If we didn't get there first the Soviets would have.

Arouet wrote:I have no idea (and don't know of any easy way to search for that). Remember, there wasn't any 24 hour news channels back then and topics weren't delved into in as much detail. But what turns on this? The issue is whether the astronauts themselves knew - given that they had doohickeys on them which measured the radiation they were exposed to it would seem that they did.


Of course they knew. First off they weren't stupid and secondly some of these guys maybe all flew experimental aircraft before joining NASA. Thirdly they knew rockets were (and still are) nothing more than controlled explosions that sometimes didn't work as planned. For example the Challenger mission ( remember the now ominous words " go at throttle up" ) or early unmanned rocket launches that blew up. See youTube. So rightly your understanding is correct; they knew the risks.

Full Text of the Man on the Moon Speech Given By President John F. Kennedy

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies:

The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.

These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.

That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine.

I.

The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek... http://history1900s.about.com/od/1960s/a/jfkmoon.htm
Last edited by really? on 01 Jan 2013, 00:06, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 31 Dec 2012, 23:57

The23rdman wrote:I think it is more interesting that NASA has said that the risks now are too great to enter deep space, but they didn't think the risk was too great during the Apollo missions. This even though Van Allen has changed his tune to state the risks from that are less now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

A citation from a valid non ct source please. An official NASA document is needed to validate your claim.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby really? » 01 Jan 2013, 00:00

Misha wrote:Arouet and Really. Are you guys satisfied with NASA's explanation and risk analysis of the Apollo radiation question? Really, you posted that "solar flares are unpredictable" and yet we have had eight missions (off the top of my head) to the moon without one astronaut having at least one complication do to radiation that I know of. Keep in mind that the Apollo missions took place in and around the solar maximum which occurs every eleven years. You guys can find the Apollo/Solar maximum information for clarity.


Luck was on their side that's all it was- luck.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 01 Jan 2013, 00:22

really? wrote:
The23rdman wrote:I think it is more interesting that NASA has said that the risks now are too great to enter deep space, but they didn't think the risk was too great during the Apollo missions. This even though Van Allen has changed his tune to state the risks from that are less now. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

A citation from a valid non ct source please. An official NASA document is needed to validate your claim.


I agree. Not sure I care enough to go hunting for one though.

EDIT: It seem "experts" doesn't mean anything here. Sydney made a huge leap from this quote to NASA experts said it. I apologise for taking his word on it.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 00:25

I just read this this morning in Lifton's and Mitchell's book - "Hiroshima In America." This passage in on page. 44, second paragraph down:

"Even as the scientists celebrated their success at Alamogordo the first radioactive cloud was drifting eastward over America, depositing fallout along its path. When Americans found out about this, three months later, the word came not from the government but from the president of Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York, who wondered why some of his film was fogging and suspected radioactivity as the cause."
[Bold italics are, Misha's]

Keep in mind the film used during the Apollo missions were from Eastman Kodak. I am inferring from this passage that the fogging occurred at the Kodak facility in Rochester, NY! As you guys are aware, I think, that film is highly susceptible to alpha, beta and gamma radiation whether through the Van Allen belts or galactic cosmic effects. How did the Apollo astronauts overcome this hazard not only to themselves but the film itself?

Really, I understand all too well the history of the Cold War. My posts under the assassination of JFK reflect my knowledge of the Cold War dynamics in part. In fact, one cannot truly understand the Cold War without serious research into the Kennedy Administration.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 00:28

really? wrote:
Misha wrote:Arouet and Really. Are you guys satisfied with NASA's explanation and risk analysis of the Apollo radiation question? Really, you posted that "solar flares are unpredictable" and yet we have had eight missions (off the top of my head) to the moon without one astronaut having at least one complication do to radiation that I know of. Keep in mind that the Apollo missions took place in and around the solar maximum which occurs every eleven years. You guys can find the Apollo/Solar maximum information for clarity.


Luck was on their side that's all it was- luck.


I don't buy that one iota.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 00:32

The23rdman wrote:The link Sydner posted that started the moon hoax debate had a quote from NASA... (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday. I'll admit I don't know how reliable the source was.


While I haven't read it yet, I tracked down the report by the National Research Counsel:

Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of
Space Exploration

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12045

(you can register as guest and put in a fake email address, it works fine)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 00:38

Misha wrote:I don't buy that one iota.


But again, this is why we have to frame the issue properly. What does it mean to say that it was luck? If the risks were low, but real, and nothing bad happened, its fair to say that luck was on their side. It's a calculated risk - a roll of a very big die.

If I'm playing poker, i'm not going to often get a royal flush. Everytime I don't get one I can say that I was lucky (or unlucky as it may be) not to get one. If I play enough hands, I'm virtually guaranteed to get one, but on any given hand the chances are quite low.

The issue is what how likely did they think the risk of a major solar flare hitting them was, and were they prepared to assume those risks?

Misha: what is your understanding of the chance that a major solar flare would have struck the astronauts? my understanding is that the risk was quite low.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby The23rdman » 01 Jan 2013, 00:45

Arouet wrote:
The23rdman wrote:The link Sydner posted that started the moon hoax debate had a quote from NASA... (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday. I'll admit I don't know how reliable the source was.


While I haven't read it yet, I tracked down the report by the National Research Counsel:

Managing Space Radiation Risk in the New Era of
Space Exploration

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12045

(you can register as guest and put in a fake email address, it works fine)


Thank you.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Misha » 01 Jan 2013, 00:55

Arouet wrote:
Misha wrote:I don't buy that one iota.


But again, this is why we have to frame the issue properly. What does it mean to say that it was luck? If the risks were low, but real, and nothing bad happened, its fair to say that luck was on their side. It's a calculated risk - a roll of a very big die.

If I'm playing poker, i'm not going to often get a royal flush. Everytime I don't get one I can say that I was lucky (or unlucky as it may be) not to get one. If I play enough hands, I'm virtually guaranteed to get one, but on any given hand the chances are quite low.

The issue is what how likely did they think the risk of a major solar flare hitting them was, and were they prepared to assume those risks?

Misha: what is your understanding of the chance that a major solar flare would have struck the astronauts? my understanding is that the risk was quite low.


My understanding is the Apollo astronauts (six missions at least) were traveling during a time of peak solar activity according to the solar maximum. If NASA could not predict solar activity at any time then how can they say it is low?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Moon Hoax Debate - The Radiation Issue

Postby Arouet » 01 Jan 2013, 00:59

Again, from my preliminary readings, the issue is not just solar flares, of which there are a lot of them - the astronauts were suitably protected from normal ones. The issue is a major one. And from what I understand, those were predictable a few days in advance - though no more than that. The idea is that they would have known that there wasn't going to be one at the beginning of the trip, so it was the end of the trip that was most at risk, but even then, the risk of a major solar flare going in their precise location would have been low risk.

If that picture that I've just described is accurate, Misha, would you say that was an acceptable risk? if not, what level of risk would you consider acceptable?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron