Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM

 

IF this radiation "danger" was such a concern then WHY were the Soviets actively attempting to "beat" the USA?

OK, I realize this is going to bore FoosM by now...but notice how the Soviets were going to try a grandstanding play, and be the first to send humans out to Moon, and back...target by 1967. (Might have made it, too...just for being "first" and the right to claim...but, they certainly weren't worried about "radiation" dangers. Their space program suffered other setbacks...)

AND, I want to preempt any claims that the USSR was somehow 'better'. They DID manage to achieve a few firsts, BUT it was all politics, and propaganda.

The story continues, after my interruption - (take note of the date above):

Khrushchev was removed from power by the Politburo later that day.

THAT deserves a !!!

!!!

It completely changed the Soviet's focus.

The new leadership, headed by Leonid Brezhnev, was less interested in manned space 'firsts' than Khrushchev had been.

Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?

Originally posted by FoosM


Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

If you would have read the link you "quoted" you could have read about tons of reasons why the Soviet space program collapsed in the 60's.

Of course, any basic history book would adress this topic too. allthough most plausible reasons have already been stated in the link.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
So tell me, assuming they were on the moon, why did the feather bounce and the hammer did not? And why did the feather bend when he moved it with his hand. I thought there was no atmosphere on the moon?

Assuming they were not on the moon, do you know for a fact that was a real hammer and a real feather?

Assuming they were not on the moon, could the same experiment be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth?

FoosM, why are you cluttering this thread with such ridiculous questions? Are you incapable - or afraid - of making a point?

Frankly, if you don't know the answers to these silly questions, you shouldn't be here.

(But we knew that, I guess.)

I was not addressing the questions to you, so now you have just cluttered this thread with a nonsense response. You dont know the answers- good for you. I can see that when you dont know something, you find it ha ha silly. You need a straight jacket?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
So tell me, assuming they were on the moon, why did the feather bounce and the hammer did not? And why did the feather bend when he moved it with his hand. I thought there was no atmosphere on the moon?

Assuming they were not on the moon, do you know for a fact that was a real hammer and a real feather?

Assuming they were not on the moon, could the same experiment be done in a vacuum chamber on Earth?

FoosM, why are you cluttering this thread with such ridiculous questions? Are you incapable - or afraid - of making a point?

Frankly, if you don't know the answers to these silly questions, you shouldn't be here.

(But we knew that, I guess.)

I was not addressing the questions to you, so now you have just cluttered this thread with a nonsense response. You dont know the answers- good for you. I can see that when you dont know something, you find it ha ha silly. You need a straight jacket?

cut out the ad hom.

You claimed that radiation was the reason that the Soviet Union gave up their plans for manned landings.

Care to prove that?

I pointed you to an alternate explanation that doesn't rely on conjecture about radiation.

If that makes you go on such an ad-hom rampage.. Well.. That does much to display your approach to discussing things.


EDIT: I was careless and thought he was adressing me. That's why I developed such a nasty tone later on. My bad; I'm sorry for that. I am keeping an eye on this thread and I will just jump in whenever I feel secure enough in my knowledge. The scientific, not political side of the debate is covered very expertly by many posters, so I will restrain myself to the political side of the argument.

[edit on 2-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 2-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 2-6-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by FoosM


Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

If you would have read the link you "quoted" you could have read about tons of reasons why the Soviet space program collapsed in the 60's.

Of course, any basic history book would adress this topic too. allthough most plausible reasons have already been stated in the link.

They said so.

So if it was a problem for them, how was it not a problem for the US?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by FoosM


Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

If you would have read the link you "quoted" you could have read about tons of reasons why the Soviet space program collapsed in the 60's.

Of course, any basic history book would adress this topic too. allthough most plausible reasons have already been stated in the link.

They said so.

So if it was a problem for them, how was it not a problem for the US?

Please provide a source that backs up your claim that radiation was the SOLE or PRIMARY reason that they didn't go.

MONEY would be the most obvious answer, but please, I will reveiew and comment on any link that you give me that cites radiation as the main reason.

reply to post by FoosM


AND here, friends, we have the full monty of FoosM in all his/(her?) glory, and incredible skill at twisting what is presented into a pretzel that doesn't resemble its original shape:


Asked to FoosM (based on a post by me, upthread):

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

(This is, of course, a reference to my posting about the Soviet space program, and the political changes -- and technical failures -- that caused their efforts to flounder. PRIOR to those events, they were well determined to "win" the 'race' to the Moon...and they had studied, and knew, that radiation was not a "deadly" danger).

The response? Amazingly (and apparently with a straight face) was this:

Originally posted by FoosM


They said so.

And BOOM! goes the cognitive disconnect (as my brain explodes...)...




[edit on 2 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh, Zoobie, Zoobie, Zoobe!!! :shk:

Is this the best you can do, now?

Originally posted by Exubrant1
It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

So...let me see if I understand what you're trying to say, here...a "light" hammer will fall more slowly than a "normal" hammer?

Is this what you learned in Physics Class? IF it was a Private school, I'd sue for my money back....

Originally posted by FoosM
Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?
....

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

They said so.
So if it was a problem for them, how was it not a problem for the US?

You're making quite a big thing out of this 'showstopper' for the Soviets, FoosM, so..

CITE this claim. Or withdraw it, and admit you made it up.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

Originally posted by FoosM


Why was radiation a show stopper for the Soviets landing men on the moon?

who ever said that radiation was the sole or primary reason that they didn't go?

If you would have read the link you "quoted" you could have read about tons of reasons why the Soviet space program collapsed in the 60's.

Of course, any basic history book would adress this topic too. allthough most plausible reasons have already been stated in the link.

They said so.

So if it was a problem for them, how was it not a problem for the US?

Please provide a source that backs up your claim that radiation was the SOLE or PRIMARY reason that they didn't go.

MONEY would be the most obvious answer, but please, I will reveiew and comment on any link that you give me that cites radiation as the main reason.

Dont put words in my mouth, I never said sole reason, i said show stopper, obviously
there were other issues to solve in sending man to the moon, but it was one of the biggest, who knows, maybe it was the biggest problem.

books.google.nl...,+1961-1963:&hl=en&cd=1#v=onepage&q=radiatio n&f=false

page 916 or do a search on radiation


also

According to the book Journey To Tranquility: in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of all Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the USSR to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: "The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation."

And money is always a problem.

reply to post by FoosM

According to the book Journey To Tranquility: in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of all Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the USSR to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: "The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation."

Because in 1963 the Soviets were doing everything they can to help the US space effort? Really?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

Obviously the filmers would get the fall times just right before the take.

MAN that is a classic type first think later reply that should be printed out a framed as the type of logic used by Moon hoax believers well done Exuberant1 thats up there with the Moon spires

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by FoosM

 

It could also be a light hammer and a feather with a lead rod in the shaft.

Obviously the filmers would get the fall times just right before the take.

I just have to jump in here too.

Ex, can you show us how a "light" hammer will fall faster than a "heavy" hammer? Even in the Earth's atmosphere?

Do you think that is the way things work?

I guess one could say that radiation was a showstopper for the russians.
Radiation, in the IR spectrum, caused by exothermic reactions.

or:
their moon rocket kept blowing up.

I find it outstanding that people without even a basic understanding of elementary physics are even bothering to try and talk about what is essentially somthing quite complicated. A 'light' hammer? As if that would make a difference to it's falling speed? Incredible. You need to learn to walk before you can run.... Why are people trying to talk about something as complicated as nuclear physics when they don't understand something as basic as the equivalence principle?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
Please provide a source that backs up your claim that radiation was the SOLE or PRIMARY reason that they didn't go.

Dont put words in my mouth, I never said sole reason, i said show stopper, obviously there were other issues to solve in sending man to the moon, but it was one of the biggest, who knows, maybe it was the biggest problem.

books.google.nl...,+1961-1963:&hl=en&cd=1#v=onepage&q=radiatio n&f=false

page 916 or do a search on radiation

Strange... if you do what FoosM suggests (despite his link being broken - was that deliberate or just incompetent?) you get a message saying "No preview available for this page - Buy this book?", and then the very short quote:

..program outlined in the Lovell letter,3 which had to be solved in advance of the lunar landing. These included the radiation and other problems.

Have you bought the book, FoosM? If so, why don't you post the entire quote, including paragraphs above and below?

Anyway, let's look at what that said - those 'other problems' presumably would be stuff like working in 1/6 gravity, and a vacuum. Yes, it probably would be a good idea for anyone planning to go to the Moon, be they Russian or USA, to research and solve any potential problems.

But FoosM, you say that means it was a 'show stopper'? Mmmm. Convincing.

OK, on to the second claim:

According to the book Journey To Tranquility: in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of all Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the USSR to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: "The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation."

Now firstly, this citation is from Moonmovie.com (no wonder you didn't want to give the source - busted), a site which has been laughed out of ATS previously as a biased and ridiculously flawed source - they are selling the hoax. So it would be no surprise to learn that quote is misleading. And it IS. If you get hold of the full copy of that letter, you will see that it actually says that Soviet scientists could see no immediate solution to the problem of protecting the cosmonauts from the lethal effects of intense solar outbursts.

Let's look at that one in detail too - first up they were giving as many excuses as they could to explain the Soviet's slow progress toward a lunar landing, at a time when they were trying desperately to outdo the USA.

Secondly, this was in 1963, and they did say they had no IMMEDIATE solution.

Thirdly, they are very obviously referring to the danger of INTENSE solar outbursts. Even the Soviets knew that such things were rare - for a few short missions, the chances of such outbursts occurring were very low. (Later I'll be showing the actual records of solar activity during the Apollo missions.)

Apollo did not completely solve the issue - providing protection for a (rare) huge outburst would add too much weight and complexity to the spacecraft and suits. So they risk-managed it - they simply had a quick return plan to bring the astronauts home as fast as possible if the Sun got 'nasty' during the missions. *Even if* there was a high level solar outburst, the astronauts would have survived, and I will be proving this later.

So AGAIN, FoosM, your 'research' falls well short. Moonmovie.com is your fallback position?


[edit on 2-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Strange... if you do what FoosM suggests (despite his link being broken - was that deliberate or just incompetent?)
--------
Probably due to your incompetence, link works for me fine.


you get a message saying "No preview available for this page - Buy this book?",
---------
Ummm.... what?
Dont you know how to use google books?


and then the very short quote:

..program outlined in the Lovell letter,3 which had to be solved in advance of the lunar landing. These included the radiation and other problems.

Have you bought the book, FoosM? If so, why don't you post the entire quote, including paragraphs above and below?
---------
Oh so know the link does work?
Its not a book, its from a memorandum from the offices of the secretary of state.
Oh so now you want me to post the entire quote? What you cant read?


Anyway, let's look at what that said - those 'other problems' presumably would be stuff like working in 1/6 gravity, and a vacuum. Yes, it probably would be a good idea for anyone planning to go to the Moon, be they Russian or USA, to research and solve any potential problems.
----------
I think it goes a little deeper than that
Lets look at what is actually said:




As you can read, rocket technology was not as big of an issue as radiation and weightlessness. And lets look the effects:

Renowned cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev, who set the absolute record for his stay in Earth’s orbit, loses his eyesight speedily.

“I suffered from a lot of radiation in space. It was all concealed back then, during the Soviet years, but now I can say that I caused damage to my health because of that flight,” the legendary pilot said.

The cosmonaut, who spent 221 days in the orbit in 1982, has progressive cataract. The legend of the Soviet space exploration becomes blind. Moscow’s best ophthalmologists examined the 66-year-old cosmonaut, but they only say that it is impossible to save his eyes.

“I started having problems with my right eye at first. I could see worse and worse, and when I asked doctors for help it was too late – they decided to have me operated,” the cosmonaut said.

Lebedev was examined at Moscow’s famous Kremlin hospital. The doctors said that the disease was developing very fast. The man’s left eye suffered from the same problems a certain time later.

Valentin Lebedev is certain that he is losing his eyesight because of his long experience of working in space.

“I burnt my eyes in space when I was working with the rocket equipment. There is no atmosphere in space so you’re getting a sunburn there like in a hot country. My eyes were aching after work a lot,” Lebedev said.

Soviet authorities preferred to keep the problems of cosmonauts’ activities in space a secret.

“First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, was suffering a lot from weightlessness. It would take us several months to recover from one single space flight,” Lebedev said.

1. this radiation damage is all from LEO.
- I can see why the Soviets sent so many bio satellites up to the 70s to study the effects of radiation in deep space. How many did the US send?

2. the effects of weightlessness is very serious.
I wonder, what is the US's record in the study of weightlessness prior to Apollo 11?
How much experience did Apollo astronauts have in space? And how much time did they spend in space prior to their long trips with Apollo?


But FoosM, you say that means it was a 'show stopper'? Mmmm. Convincing.
---------
Yes it is for any unbiased person.


OK, on to the second claim:

According to the book Journey To Tranquility: in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of all Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the USSR to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: "The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation."

Now firstly, this citation is from Moonmovie.com (no wonder you didn't want to give the source - busted), a site which has been laughed out of ATS previously as a biased and ridiculously flawed source - they are selling the hoax. So it would be no surprise to learn that quote is misleading. And it IS. If you get hold of the full copy of that letter, you will see that it actually says that Soviet scientists could see no immediate solution to the problem of protecting the cosmonauts from the lethal effects of intense solar outbursts.
--------
Where is your source and quote it.
Do you dispute what Moonmovie.com quoted?

You dont trust Moonmovie.com
ok try Lovell in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Oct 1963:



Let's look at that one in detail too - first up they were giving as many excuses as they could to explain the Soviet's slow progress toward a lunar landing, at a time when they were trying desperately to outdo the USA.
----
Thats your interpretation of history.
Its apparent that the Soviets were a bit more cautious for such a long journey.


Secondly, this was in 1963, and they did say they had no IMMEDIATE solution.
----
Has it been solved?


Thirdly, they are very obviously referring to the danger of INTENSE solar outbursts. Even the Soviets knew that such things were rare - for a few short missions, the chances of such outbursts occurring were very low. (Later I'll be showing the actual records of solar activity during the Apollo missions.)
-----
Whats the difference, its still radiation. As I said, radiation was a show stopper.
And I cant wait to see your findings.


*Even if* there was a high level solar outburst, the astronauts would have survived, and I will be proving this later.
----
I cant wait for that one too


So AGAIN, FoosM, your 'research' falls well short. Moonmovie.com is your fallback position?
----
You know CHRLZ, that was a lot of squirming around on your part.
First of, attacking the messenger? Even in Lovell's own book he doesn't say *intense*:

Discovering the Universe

Enormous problems are involved, particularly those of a successful rendezvous of two space craft in orbit and the protection of human beings from the solar radiation which they will experience in space.

Originally posted by FoosMDont you know how to use google books?

Not really, if I want a book, I buy it. There's something about paper.

Oh so now you want me to post the entire quote?

Yes, that IS actually the idea. Finally got through.

I think it goes a little deeper than that

What you think is irrelevant. It's the truth that matters. two very different things.

And you posted an *image*??? Don't you know how to post text?

As you can read, rocket technology was not as big of an issue as radiation and weightlessness.

Yes, I can. And the Russians were having "show-stopper" problems with weightlessness too, not just radiation? The poor things!

Clearly they would never have overcome those "show-stoppers". Weightlessness in space?? Who'd a thought????

Renowned cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev, who set the absolute record for his stay in Earth’s orbit, loses his eyesight speedily.

Some of the Apollo astronauts have also suffered from cataracts in later life too. That's a "show-stopper"?

1. this radiation damage is all from LEO.

What type of radiation damage is it, and at what levels? How was it measured? How did it happen? Was it anticipated? Could it have been prevented? Yes, let's be specific - I'd suggest you do it now, or you can just wait until I cover it later in my radiation analysis.

I wonder, what is the US's record in the study of weightlessness prior to Apollo 11?

How LONG were the Apollo missions, again? Days, not months, not even a fortnight. (And for how much of the missions were they weightless? Do you think lugging around the MASS of about 180lbs of spacesuit in 1/6 gravity is weightless?)

How much experience did Apollo astronauts have in space?

Again, what is your point? That you don't know how much experience these guys had? May I suggest Wiki instead of playing games?

And how much time did they spend in space prior to their long trips with Apollo?

The longest trip was...? 12 days 17 hours. "Show-stoppingly" long!

Now firstly, this citation is from Moonmovie.com (no wonder you didn't want to give the source - busted

--------
Where is your source and quote it.

Hold it right there. YOU were the one who deliberately did NOT cite that you got the text from Moonmovie, and now you question mine? I think you should go first. Cite the actual document, not someone's interpretation of it. After you...

Do you dispute what Moonmovie.com quoted?

Yes. They did not quote the actual document or the context, and offered a selective interpretation. So now the challenge is over to YOU as the supplier of this 'information' to go back and find the original source. YOUR claim. YOU find it.

ok try Lovell in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Oct 1963...

Another PRICELESS FoosM move. Those are NOT the words used by Moonmovie!!! How APT! Now you bust your own quote, and show that moonmovie just made up their 'interpretation'... Nice one, FoosM.

And all that 'quote' says is that in 1963, 6 full years before Apollo went, a Russian said they were worried about solar flares. Whoopdedoo. Nasa were also worried about them but they were well informed, had plans in place, very effective shielding in the CM particularly, and a plan to rush the astronauts back if necessary. It wasn't necessary - solar flares of the damaging type are RARE, and there were NONE during any Apollo mission. And even if there had been an extremely high energy one, the astronauts would have survived, as I'll be showing later.

Its apparent that the Soviets were a bit more cautious for such a long journey.

And sure, I can just imagine them telling Lovell exactly what all the *real* problems were with the Russian space program, just like NASA would have told them.. Or, just perhaps, they were desperately making excuses to cover the fact that their space program was simply not up to a lunar mission - as was subsequently demonstrated by their hopeless Saturn V equivalents, the *hideously* badly designed N1.

Has it been solved?

For short missions, yes. Still having troubles understanding this 'duration' concept? It's tricky, I know.

Whats the difference, its still radiation.

I'm sorry, but that is a very stupid statement. I guess it was a typing error... To start on your journey of knowledge, I'd suggest that *at least* you learn about ionising and non-ionising. I know we'll never get secondary radiation (via HEP) through to you (does more lead solve everything, FoosM?), but at least the ionising stuff might stand a chance of getting through.

By the way FoosM, have you EVER posted a NUMBER for any of your arguments? And how you arrived at it?

Why don't you do that NOW, before *I* do...

You will have noticed that I'm going very slowly with the radiation analysis - I want you and your denier friends/socks to have plenty of time to object. You better get in early, because your opportunities to defend your position are going to run out quite rapidly. I would point out that NO-ONE has questioned or corrected any of the radiation analysis statements I've made so far... I'll give them one more day before the next one...

And did you ever say which issue was your best proof? I'm guessin' it's probably not radiation, now...

Originally posted by FoosM
2. the effects of weightlessness is very serious.
I wonder, what is the US's record in the study of weightlessness prior to Apollo 11?
How much experience did Apollo astronauts have in space? And how much time did they spend in space prior to their long trips with Apollo?

Gemini 7
From wikipedia:
Frank F. Borman, II and James A. Lovell, Jr spent nearly 13 2/3 days in space for a total of 206 orbits

...
Mind googling yourself for a change Foosm?

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Apollo rockets with nowhere near enough fuel to make it that far, its very fascinating how the public was shown all of this just as 9/11 was.

I'm sorry - this one statement throws me off of any type of track I was on toward lending you credibility.

The "lack of fuel" was never an issue with the Apollo missions. A law of physics states that a body in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an opposing force of equal or greater strength. The fuel in the Apollo modules was used only as an initial burn to break the Earth's gravitational pull. The modules then coasted the rest of the way to the moon until they were in position where a slight orbital burn and manuevering thrusters were used. The remainder of the fuel was used up to make the gravity break from the moon and coast back to Earth.

Surely you weren't under the assumption that the Apollo modules burned their engines the entire way there?!

Cheers!