Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

A 4th source for OV1 information is Jos Heyman.
Intel... The Orbiting Vehicle Series (OV1)
author: Jos Heyman, FBIS, Tiros Space Information
Source www.milsatmagazine.com...

Chronicles... The Orbiting Vehicles Series — OV2 + Onwards —
author: Jos Heyman, FBIS, TIROS Space Information
Source www.milsatmagazine.com...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Tomblvd, on to the follow up question - When the Russians launched a turtle to the moon on September 14, 1968, did it directly enhance NASA's scientific understanding of cosmic space radiation on human tissue, prior to the Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968?

Lol, of course not!

The Soviet predisposition of sending living creatures into space was merely a media-driven event. It had little to do with actual science.

Anything NASA wanted to know about radiation, be it in LEO, trans VA belt or csi-lunar space was easily obtained with the recording devices they launched throughout the decades prior to Apollo.

You don't need to send live creatures into an environment to determine if it is dangerous. As a matter of fact it is a bad way to do it, seeing as how different species react to radiation differently.

now I am going to ask you for the citation which shows that, prior to Apollo 8 launch date, NASA scientists reproduced deep space conditions in controlled laboratory experiments and conducted studies of human tissue or live animals in that 'reproduced' environment.

What "deep space conditions" are you talking about? Please be specific.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterIt will take some time for me to correlate all this mission information. I look forward to absorbing more radiation data!

(horrible radiation joke)

But I will stand by my "full of fail" remark since 5 failures in 12 launches (speaking of OV1) equates to a 41 percent fail rate.

You can't say it was 5 in 12. There were 5 in 27 spacecraft that failed to reach orbit. Only two of the launches where complete failures (with the three craft on those rockets not reaching orbit). The other two craft that failed to reach orbit were on launches where other payload was able to get to the intended orbit.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


How's this:

Second Symposium on Protection against Radiations in Space (1964)

It contains a ton of papers, and you can see that the papers reference previous work. And this is just from the second symposium..

And here is a long 1967 report that also cites a ton of previous work:

Radiobiological factors in manned space flight

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

How's this:

Second Symposium on Protection against Radiations in Space (1964)

It contains a ton of papers, and you can see that the papers reference previous work. And this is just from the second symposium..

And here is a long 1967 report that also cites a ton of previous work:

Radiobiological factors in manned space flight

sigh....it really makes ya wonder, doesn't it? Today, we have at our fingertips, the sum of all human knowledge, and some cannot be bothered to find their own answers.
Expecting to gain an understanding of the entire scope, of decades of scientific research, and mountains of books and papers on the subjects involved, in this farce of a debate, by watching YouTube videos from some whack job in Australia, that got carried away with his school art project, and has an unhealthy fixation with prepubescent children s television shows and curmudgeonly, debunked pseudo-intellectual fraudsters, and who has been roundly and decisively thrashed on every forum from here to the freaking IMDB website; well, that is just not very realistic.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiterIt will take some time for me to correlate all this mission information. I look forward to absorbing more radiation data!

(horrible radiation joke)

But I will stand by my "full of fail" remark since 5 failures in 12 launches (speaking of OV1) equates to a 41 percent fail rate.

You can't say it was 5 in 12. There were 5 in 27 spacecraft that failed to reach orbit. Only two of the launches where complete failures (with the three craft on those rockets not reaching orbit). The other two craft that failed to reach orbit were on launches where other payload was able to get to the intended orbit.

I stand corrected. 12 launches in the OV1 series, 27 total spacecraft in the OV1 series. I am counting 9 of 27 spacecraft with failures within the OV1 series. That would only be 33 percent failure rate for the OV1 series? The point I was trying to make with the OV1 series examples is that, for 1968, the failure rate in unmanned spacecraft missions was still a serious obstacle to gathering science data.

OV1-1 the separation mechanism failed to release the satellite from the launch vehicle.
OV1-3 The launch vehicle exploded after 2 minutes of flight.
OV1-7 satellite failed to orbit as the door of the payload bay of the launch vehicle, which was the same as for OV1-8, did not open quickly enough.
OV1-11 did not reach orbit.. failure of the apogee motor prevented the satellite to separate from the launch vehicle.
OV1-14 Due to a power failure the satellite ceased transmitting data after one week in service.
OV1-86* satellite tumbled only partial data was gathered.
OV1-17 was not correctly stabilised and spinned, resulting in four experiments, which required proper stabilisation, returning useless data.
OV1-18 As the satellite did not stabilise properly in orbit, some of the data could not be used.

*reference sites also used slight variations in the mission designators. e.g. Astronautix uses OV1-08S while Jos Heyman and NASA both use OV1-86.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I'm not sure you get the scope of the early space program. By the end of 1968, the US had launched 573 objects into orbit. There were many that had instruments designed to investigate radiation in the environment.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Tomblvd, on to the follow up question - When the Russians launched a turtle to the moon on September 14, 1968, did it directly enhance NASA's scientific understanding of cosmic space radiation on human tissue, prior to the Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968?

Lol, of course not!

The Soviet predisposition of sending living creatures into space was merely a media-driven event. It had little to do with actual science.

Anything NASA wanted to know about radiation, be it in LEO, trans VA belt or csi-lunar space was easily obtained with the recording devices they launched throughout the decades prior to Apollo.

You don't need to send live creatures into an environment to determine if it is dangerous. As a matter of fact it is a bad way to do it, seeing as how different species react to radiation differently.

now I am going to ask you for the citation which shows that, prior to Apollo 8 launch date, NASA scientists reproduced deep space conditions in controlled laboratory experiments and conducted studies of human tissue or live animals in that 'reproduced' environment.

What "deep space conditions" are you talking about? Please be specific.

Tomblvd, please meet DJW001. I'll let you two have a moment to discuss the "deep space conditions".

DJW001 has said "Sending live animals into the cis-lunar environment was unnecessary;" DJW001 also stated "the data received from electronic probes allowed scientists to reproduce deep space radiation conditions in controlled laboratory experiments."

Tomblvd has agreed with DJW001 here "You don't need to send live creatures into an environment to determine if it is dangerous." Tomblvd also stated "Anything NASA wanted to know about radiation, be it in LEO, trans VA belt or csi-lunar space was easily obtained with the recording devices they launched throughout the decades prior to Apollo."

Where are the NASA citations for human tissue/live animal testing conducted outside the VAB's prior to Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968? There are none.

Zond 5 launched September 18, 1968. Zond-5 became the first spacecraft to circle the Moon and return to land on Earth. I completely disagree with the assessment that a turtle in space on Zond-5 was simply for sensational purposes. The Russians sent turtles (and turtle food) because it conforms to the scientific method of testing and the next logical experiment in a sequence of scientific inquiries was to send a live animal to the moon and back. So there is some science for you after all

NASA has nothing to compare.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. - source Wikipedia

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Where are the NASA citations for human tissue/live animal testing conducted outside the VAB's prior to Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968? There are none.

You didn't even look at the sources I gave you, did you? Plenty of tissue analysis in there.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Where are the NASA citations for human tissue/live animal testing conducted outside the VAB's prior to Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968? There are none.

You didn't even look at the sources I gave you, did you? Plenty of tissue analysis in there.

The page numbering in the pdf media is not the same page numbering as printed on the actual scanned text. So page 162 in the pdf media notation is actually page 164 of the actual scanned text. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Tomblvd, please meet DJW001.

I'll let you two have a moment to discuss the "deep space conditions".

DJW001 has said "Sending live animals into the cis-lunar environment was unnecessary;" DJW001 also stated "the data received from electronic probes allowed scientists to reproduce deep space radiation conditions in controlled laboratory experiments."

Tomblvd has agreed with DJW001 here "You don't need to send live creatures into an environment to determine if it is dangerous." Tomblvd also stated "Anything NASA wanted to know about radiation, be it in LEO, trans VA belt or csi-lunar space was easily obtained with the recording devices they launched throughout the decades prior to Apollo."

Where are the NASA citations for human tissue/live animal testing conducted outside the VAB's prior to Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968? There are none.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us what, specifically, "deep space conditions" are. You laugh it off, but it is of extreme importance if we are to tell if you really have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to radiation.

Originally posted by Tomblvd
I'm still waiting for you to tell us what, specifically, "deep space conditions" are. You laugh it off, but it is of extreme importance if we are to tell if you really have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to radiation.

reply to post by Tomblvd


Like I said you need to speak to DJW001 about his post on page 258 of this thread. Let's review.

DJW001 wrote (in pertinent part):
Sending live animals into the cis-lunar environment was unnecessary; the data received from electronic probes allowed scientists to reproduce deep space radiation conditions in controlled laboratory experiments. This allowed for more direct observations. The example you cited earlier is an excellent example of the limitations on performing experiments that are monitored remotely by telemetry.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Tomblvd
I'm still waiting for you to tell us what, specifically, "deep space conditions" are. You laugh it off, but it is of extreme importance if we are to tell if you really have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to radiation.

reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Like I said you need to speak to DJW001 about his post on page 258 of this thread. Let's review.

DJW001 wrote (in pertinent part):
Sending live animals into the cis-lunar environment was unnecessary; the data received from electronic probes allowed scientists to reproduce deep space radiation conditions in controlled laboratory experiments. This allowed for more direct observations. The example you cited earlier is an excellent example of the limitations on performing experiments that are monitored remotely by telemetry.

That tells me nothing.

I want to know what it is about "deep space" that you think is specifically dangerous. You are the one who brought it up, now tell us why.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Where are the NASA citations for human tissue/live animal testing conducted outside the VAB's prior to Apollo 8 launch on December 21, 1968? There are none.

What part of unnecessary did you not understand? NASA has been conducting radiation research in conjunction with The AEC (now Department of Energy), Brookhaven National Laboratory and other academic institutions, both public and private since its inception. Most of this research has consisted of exposing living tissue to ionizing radiation of various sorts under varying conditions. Since living tissue includes bunny rabbits and cute squirrel monkeys they try not to draw too much public attention to the details. The results of these experiments have long since entered the scientific noosphere, but if you are genuinely interested in reading the papers this research generated, you can track them down on paper or microfiche. Otherwise, I'm not sure if I understand your question properly.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Perhaps you were not aware of the fact that it is unnecessary to conduct radiation testing on biological subjects by launching expensive missiles into space. There are ways of doing those tests here on earth, in controlled, in-situ environments. As has been repeatedly explained, the NEO - cislunar orbit environments had already been exhaustively studied and the data collected was sufficient to conduct earth based tests. Also there already existed a great deal of data from previous nuclear and radiological research.

reply to post by DJW001


DJW001, let me explain to you something. Your job is not to convince me what to think. My job is to ask a neutral question and I expect just neutral responses. I am not here to make points against you. The thread it gets a bit confusing when Tomblvd is quoting SayonaraJupiter, when SayonaraJupiter is asking questions to DJW001. I have no control over that aspect of the thread. Please accept my apologies if there has been some miscommunications in our dialogue here in this thread.

DJW001 "The radiation argument hinges upon one factor: fear of radiation."

No, it does not. The radiation argument hinges on the scientific knowledge available to NASA on the launch date for Apollo 8. This was the 21 December, 1968.

I asked a neutral question on page 258:

SayonaraJupiter wrote: DJW001 could you please point out to me any successful science missions (US or USSR) doing human tissue or live animal testing which exceeded beyond LEO and beyond the VAB's prior to A8, launch date December 21, 1968? Same question for weed and Tomblvd. It is a yes or no question. If, yes, please cite your sources.

-----
THANKS nataylor for that fine artifact, the 1964 Symposium pdf. That is some beautiful literature. For example, in the 1964 pdf, on pdf page 149, the author is Peter W. Higgins. When I read something like that, well, it's better than a Stephen King novel at least

-----
Tomblvd, you have gathered your facts and you have connected the dots in a way that satisfies you and you have already accepted in your mind that all of the data supports your viewpoint. Will you at least allow me to come to my own conclusions by asking neutral questions in this thread?

Tomblvd wrote: I want to know what it is about "deep space" that you think is specifically dangerous. You are the one who brought it up, now tell us why.

What science is better? Theoretical science papers which speculate on Monte Carlo simulations or the science that actually sends a turtle around the moon? Which science is more credible to you?

Has Jarrah White ever appeared in this thread?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
What science is better? Theoretical science papers which speculate on Monte Carlo simulations or the science that actually sends a turtle around the moon? Which science is more credible to you?

A strawman. There have been endless experiments since the discovery of x-rays using every different kind of radiation as it was discovered. Looking at all that compared to one turtle is ridiculous. There is nothing magical about space radiation. Which leads me AGAIN to this question:

I want to know what it is about "deep space" that you think is specifically dangerous. You are the one who brought it up, now tell us why.

Please tell us what you know about "deep space radiation"?

Radiation is JW's main argument. Here is a source which supports the same conclusion.

www.space.com...

The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.

Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.

"A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known. They gambled a bit."

Someone walking on the Moon, even in a fancy space suit, would be good as naked in the face of the Sun's worst fury.

"If one were exposed to the full brunt of a solar event, that could cause acute effects in the very short term," Zeitlin explained in a telephone interview. "Quite severe illness" could result. NASA says the radiation sickness from a solar flare could kill an unprotected astronaut.

Cosmic rays, the other big space-particle worry, come from undetermined galactic sources and pose a greater long-term risk for cancer, cataracts and other illness, Zeitlin said. Cosmic ray particles are more energetic than their solar cousins.

"These are atomic nuclei stripped of electrons," he explained. "They're able to penetrate many centimeters of solid matter."

It might seem, then, that the first human trip to Mars should take place at solar minimum, a 2-3 year stretch every 11 years when sunspots and flares are almost nonexistent.

But there's a catch: "Galactic particle intensity picks up during solar minimum," Zeitlin said. They are higher-energy and more difficult to shield in a space habitat and "impossible to shield completely" on a spaceship.

JW's radiation argument is not based on nor does it not promote an irrational fear of space radiation. There are a thousand sources which will tell you that men landed on the moon but there are a thousand sources which tell you that space is full of deadly radiation!. And we don't know enough about it. That's why we are sending more missions to the moon to gather further information. Because we didn't have the data in 1968.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Radiation is JW's main argument. Here is a source which supports the same conclusion.

You left off the most important part of that article:

There is no "biggest danger" in setting up a permanent lunar presence or sending people to Mars, says John Charles, an enthusiastic proponent of both ideas and a NASA analyst of the costs and risks of human space flight: "There are several."

Launch, landing and re-entry are perhaps the riskiest moments of any space venture, history shows. But on long missions, what would otherwise be minor threats could become at best serious limitations or at worst deadly disasters.

Basking in the glow of President Bush's call for sending humans back to the Moon as early as 2015 and then eventually to the red planet, Charles, who works at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, offered up his danger list yesterday:

* Lack of a medical facility could turn a mundane injury into a life-threatening situation;
* "Psychosocial" pressure will be high in a small group isolated for months or years;
* Zero or reduced gravity causes bone and muscle loss;
* Dangerous radiation particles are abundant beyond Earth orbit.

"Radiation is a potential show stopper," Charles told SPACE.com, quickly adding that researchers are "getting on top of that" while also learning how to clear the other hurdles.

Total exposure

Any grand leap into the cosmos, as outlined by Bush last week, will start with dangerous baby steps as explorers cautiously venture into the hazardous, radiation-laden space beyond Earth's protective magnetic field. Scientists are still working to characterize the dangers and develop the technologies necessary for safe suits and ships.

This much they know:

Any trip beyond Earth orbit will involve radiation threats not faced by residents of the International Space Station, which sits inside the planet's magnetic field.

A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.

The article deals with long-term radiation exposure, not the short-term they dealt with on the Apollo missions.

That is the point JW continually misses, or ignores, radiation has a cumulative effect, so you must plan accordingly for long term missions.

When I go into the office for a few hours this morning (I'm a dentist), I will take at least a few x-rays, and once I set up the shot, I leave the room as the pic is taken. Sometimes a patient will ask me, "why do you have to leave the room, is it dangerous?". I explain that for them, a single radiograph is not a problem, but if you were in the room day after day, dozens of times a day, you would eventually get damage to your body. But it takes a prolonged exposure.