"jj" stop.right.there.net wrote in message
...
:
: For a good chuckle, go he http://moon.google.com/
: Then push the slide all the way to maximum "+"
:
: I laughed out loud!

Hmm... you didn't know that, huh?
The problem is it should be green.

"jj" stop.right.there.net wrote in message
...
: BradGuth wrote:
:
: A moon camera needs one heck of a UVa cut-off filter.
:
: They used regular Zeiss lenses which, like almost all lenses, do not
: transmit UV efficiently. To accomodate UV photography with film, one
: needs a special lens, usually with Quartz in the formula... and a UV
: sensitive film! They had neither.
:
: However, filters would be no problem. Look at the material of the face
: shields.
:
: It also needs shielding from local gamma and hard-Xrays.
:
: Not much at all was needed. First, the level of X-Rays is quite low.
: Gamma rays are not frequent enough for the time they were there to
: accumulate to a significant level.

No, no, LOCAL gamma rays. Guth the Super Prospector knows
how to find radioactive material right there in the Gruyère holes.
He learnt it from Johannes Wilhelm Geiger (1882 - 1945) but the old boy
was 24 years dead in 1969. He spent the period 1906-12 in Manchester,
England, working with Ernest Rutherford on radioactivity.



: The highly electrostatic environment of that
: physically dark and dusty anticathode moon is simply asking too much
: of most any camera, or much less that of human DNA.
:
: Once on the moon, they are the charge. No problem.
:
: So much for your uninformed imagination.

On Jul 11, 9:40 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...]

So, the existence of the Voyagers and the Apollo missions contradict
each other. To accept one, you must reject the validity of the other
one. Since there are no controversial claims to the achievements of
the Voyagers, I must conclude the Apollo mission being a hoax.
Indeed, there are a lot of suggestions to indicate it being a hoax.

Where did the moon rocks come from?

How did the cube corner arrays get on the moon?

How did the US fool the soviets?

How did the US fool the radar operators?

On Jul 11, 1:40 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Jul 8, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

[...]

So how do we prove that we were up there on Luna to
Brad Guth? Possibly the only method that might work
is dumping him up there and letting him see for himself
the rovers, landers, and other such stuff. (Of course
I'd send him up there with a space suit, and a way back.
I'm nasty but not vicious. :-) )

Then he gets to prove it to the other skeptics. :-)

[...]

In the late 50's, the radiation level of the low earth orbit (LEO) has
already been identified as 10 RADs/year or so. During the 60's, Van
Allen Belts radiation has been identified as high as 100M RADs/year.
What was unknown was the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts.
So, NASA assumed it to be relatively as benign as LEO. The Apollo
missions on paper were designed to meet just this low level of
radiation. The capsules have shielding of 0.3g/cm^2 which means the
astronauts are naked to any radiation.

Yes, we were told and shown on stage that these guys actually went
there. In the meantime, the Mariners and the Viking deep space probes
were flown with very short mission life span.

And an Apollo mission is what, 5 years?

NASA quickly found out
the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts to be a very serious
issue. Communication satellites in the geosynchronous orbits since
the early 70's have to survive at least 200K RADs of radiation.

And a communication satellite has to remain on station for years,
and is stuck at geosynchronous orbit, which means on the
equator.

In contrast, an Apollo mission goes through the belts in a
matter of hours. Let's say 2 hours off the top of my head, or
0.1 day, or about 0.0003 year, or about 0.00003 of the length
of a comsat mission. So if the astronauts flew through the
same latitude, the thick of the belts, the outside of their
spacecraft would receive an exposure on the order of
(3*10^-5)*(2*10^5) = 6 Rad, using your numbers.

But the astronauts don't fly through the thick of the belts. The
missions were designed to go at high latitudes, and avoid
the worst part of the belts. Furthermore, they don't ride on the
outside of the craft, but on the inside, and despite your
claims that a small amount of shielding is the same as zero,
it simply isn't true. A few cm of shielding can go a long way
in stopping neutrons and other heavy particles.

So do
the next generation of deep space probes such as the Voyager I and
II. Voyager probes last for decades with consideration in radiation

And how many decades is an Apollo mission?

Is the exposure the same in a week as in a decade?

With cats out of the bag, NASA continued to play dumb. In one hand,
they are requiring electronics to survive in such intense radiation
beyond the Van Allen Belts.

For how long? And how long in comparison is an Apollo mission?

- Randy

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:05:28 GMT
Yk6li.25756$Fc.12024@attbi_s21:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

Not only did we send a dozen humans to the surface of the moon, but
the landers, buggies, equipment and foot prints are still there! You
can even bounce lasers of the corner reflectors.

This is not proof that we were on the moon.


Of course the evidence is proof, Ghost.

Evidence is not mathematical proof. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
perhaps -- which is good enough in a criminal case, and certainly
good enough in this case.

One can go to the moon (perhaps not
easily) and see the artifacts, but why do that. Lincoln and Kennedy were shot
in the head... Yes you can dig up the remains (assuming neither was cremated)
and view the evidence. But, why would you bother.

Why indeed?


The evidence is there to view. There is evidence laying about for every aspect
of the Apollo program. Copious images taken on the ground at the moon, people
alive who made the trip, thousands of people alive to participated in the building,
and operation of the missions, hundreds of pounds of lunar samples... There is
as much proof and documentation as there is of anything else that ever happened.

Justify your statement "This is not proof that we were on the moon"!


But it is not. It is merely very solid, strong evidence. The artifacts
you're referring to, which include things from moonrocks to the leftover
Saturn V stages running around somewhere -- they used to be in the
Rocket Garden but have since been restored, or are in the process -- are
of course evidence.

This is probably good enough for most, of course -- and the scientific
community has better things to do than to examine our "anticathode" moon
to somehow find out whether we were there or not and prove it,
mathematically.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dear Randy Poe:

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
....
the worst part of the belts. Furthermore, they don't ride on
the
outside of the craft, but on the inside, and despite your
claims that a small amount of shielding is the same as zero,
it simply isn't true. A few cm of shielding can go a long way
in stopping neutrons and other heavy particles.

If you argue with them, you only serve to encourage them.

There was essentially *no* shielding on the Apollo missions,
because "a few centimeters" of shielding is worse than none at
all. Rather than a handfull of very energetic particles that
simply pass right through us, doing essentially no damage, you
get spallation products from metal sheidling. The Apollo mission
was run at very low pressure, and had *very thin* skins.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1966003568.pdf
.... bottom of page 7 of the pdf
"The wall thickness range from one half to five millimeters of
single aluminum wall."

It isn't so much the energy of a single "hit", as it is the
number of hits.

More to the point, you could discuss "hormesis" with them. Where
some of the people exposed to a small amount of nuclear radiation
at Nagasaki or Hiroshima actually had *fewer* cancers, even fewer
of other illnesses / ailments. "Chronic" is not the same as
"acute" in exposure either.

But it all leads to them draining you, them becoming ignorant
again (still), and it all starts again.

David A. Smith

In sci.physics.relativity, BradGuth

wrote
on Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:17:21 -0000
.com:
On Jul 8, 11:04 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
This is assuming we don't boost a telescope to low earth orbit
with sufficient resolving power to see the flag dropped by
Apollo 11. (That would take some doing. A resolution of 2.6
picoradians or 107 nanoarcseconds would be necessary, in order
to resolve features 1mm on the lunar surface. The best the
Hubble can do is 100 milliarcseconds, which means Hubble
could see features about 1 km in size. It might be able
to photograph the plume left by each lander by its rockets,
but it might be hard to see.)

KECK can manage to push 1 meter/pixel if doing it my way. A few other
terrestrial instruments could do as well or better. A small orbital
satellite at the moon should have accomplished as good as 0.1 meter,
as of decades ago. Interactive science instruments from the lunar
surface should have been the norm as of nearly 5 decades ago, and of
multiple instruments deployed ever since, instead of our having the
sorts of hocus pocus crapolla that you folks worship.

Where's our moon's L1 science platform or "Clarke Station"?

We never put one up there. Were we supposed to, as part of the Mercury
or Apollo programs?

And in fact there is a picture of a black gouge/deposit on the Moon,
caused by one of the landers and viewed by Clementine. Apparently, it
also saw a second feature as well, caused by the rover.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...os_010427.html

-
Brad Guth



--
#191,
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:11:52 GMT
Yq6li.8454$Xa3.1522@attbi_s22:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:


I'll admit to some curiosity as to whether any NASA pic
pointed to a bright enough star (or to Venus, Brad's main
point of contention) -- and NASA took a *lot* of pictures.

There are a number of factors in proper picture taking,
especially of stars, but the brief answer is that various
photographs require hours to expose in order to show the
stars and the trees framing them properly, here on Earth,
during a dark, moonless night well away from city lighting.
However, a snapshot of a sunny beach day could be done
within a few thousandths of a second (any longer and the
film gets overexposed).

You see live images from the international Space Station
and space shuttles during the dark cycles--how come you are
not calling those faked? Do you see stars?

Well, after saying this, I did find a pic of Venus and the Moon
together, taken from an Earth telescope. Turns out there's
a fair number, and this one illustrates in miniature one of the
issues regarding exposures:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070523.html

The crescent in the moon blooms nicely, and even Venus blooms a bit
(there is a bit of a whitish area around Venus, with the camera's
diffraction spikes poking through it).

Now imagine landing on the Moon; if one takes a snapshot,
in order to avoid blooming out the entire picture of the
lunar surface while standing thereon, Venus would probably
have to vanish -- assuming it was in the field of view at
all to begin with.

(And this is assuming Venus has the same brightness as it did on
2007-05-23. Venus' brightness varies considerably.)



Since on the Moon the stars are visible even when the Sun
is shining (if one isn't overcome by glare; presumably
one could step into the shadow of something, say the LEM,
if need be), one might take a photograph of the stars
while the Sun is shining -- but if one gets sunlight,
either directly (as poor Bean discovered) or indirectly,
if the camera doesn't want to risk overexposure of the
film and/or video sensor from the sunlight, the stars
are too faint to see, and if one wants to see stars,
any reflected sunlight will either burn out the camera or
overexpose the picture in those areas.


I doubt Venus is much better off, though it at least
shows a perceptible disk through binoculars. Pointed at
the Sun, those same binocs would probably burn out one's
retina, were one to look at the Sun through said binocs.
(This is especially important during a partial eclipse;
fortunately most binocs and telescopes can also project
the Sun's image onto a white surface.)

SOHO shows a mildly interesting phenomenon when staring
at a comet; the comet "blooms" in the sensors, leading to
odd-looking streaks.


SOHO images you refer to, block the solar disk so the sensors can
remain sensitive to much fainter gas of the corona, which is
sensitive enough to show sun grazing comets, planets and bright
stars.


It's bad enough with SOHO's blooming of comets and Mercury
-- the solar disc would probably destroy its sensors. :-)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u 0) ... }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 11, 8:26 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:40 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

In the late 50's, the radiation level of the low earth orbit (LEO) has
already been identified as 10 RADs/year or so. During the 60's, Van
Allen Belts radiation has been identified as high as 100M RADs/year.
What was unknown was the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts.
So, NASA assumed it to be relatively as benign as LEO. The Apollo
missions on paper were designed to meet just this low level of
radiation. The capsules have shielding of 0.3g/cm^2 which means the
astronauts are naked to any radiation.

Yes, we were told and shown on stage that these guys actually went
there. In the meantime, the Mariners and the Viking deep space probes
were flown with very short mission life span.

And an Apollo mission is what, 5 years?

NASA quickly found out
the radiation level beyond the Van Allen Belts to be a very serious
issue. Communication satellites in the geosynchronous orbits since
the early 70's have to survive at least 200K RADs of radiation.

And a communication satellite has to remain on station for years,
and is stuck at geosynchronous orbit, which means on the
equator.

Shrug

In contrast, an Apollo mission goes through the belts in a
matter of hours. Let's say 2 hours off the top of my head, or
0.1 day, or about 0.0003 year, or about 0.00003 of the length
of a comsat mission. So if the astronauts flew through the
same latitude, the thick of the belts, the outside of their
spacecraft would receive an exposure on the order of
(3*10^-5)*(2*10^5) = 6 Rad, using your numbers.

Interesting! The numbers published by NASA publication, TN D-7080 -
Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation, each
astronaut would receive the following dosage through out the entire
mission.

** Apollo 7 = 0.16 RAD
** Apollo 8 = 0.16 RAD
** Apollo 9 = 0.20 RAD
** Apollo 10 = 0.48 RAD
** Apollo 11 = 0.18 RAD
** Apollo 12 = 0.58 RAD
** Apollo 13 = 0.24 RAD
** Apollo 14 = 1.14 RADs
** Apollo 15 = 0.30 RAD

Each mission was significantly lower. It was consistent with 10
RADs / year. It looked like someone screwed up trying to fudge the
numbers. Oops!

But the astronauts don't fly through the thick of the belts. The
missions were designed to go at high latitudes, and avoid
the worst part of the belts. Furthermore, they don't ride on the
outside of the craft, but on the inside, and despite your
claims that a small amount of shielding is the same as zero,
it simply isn't true. A few cm of shielding can go a long way
in stopping neutrons and other heavy particles.

Radiation shielding is rated by mass per area. shrug

So do
the next generation of deep space probes such as the Voyager I and
II. Voyager probes last for decades with consideration in radiation

And how many decades is an Apollo mission?

Is the exposure the same in a week as in a decade?

You are closing your eyes to the intense radiation level outside of
the Van Allen Belts. Granted it is much weaker than inside, it is
still very lethal to human health. shrug

With cats out of the bag, NASA continued to play dumb. In one hand,
they are requiring electronics to survive in such intense radiation
beyond the Van Allen Belts.

For how long? And how long in comparison is an Apollo mission?

You have a PhD according to your own claim. You should be able to
figure it all out after I have given you enough information.

On Jul 11, 9:35 pm, David Smith wrote:

If you argue with them, you only serve to encourage them.

Boy! You are challenging their manhood. shrug

There was essentially *no* shielding on the Apollo missions,
because "a few centimeters" of shielding is worse than none at
all. Rather than a handfull of very energetic particles that
simply pass right through us, doing essentially no damage, you
get spallation products from metal sheidling. The Apollo mission
was run at very low pressure, and had *very thin* skins.

Thus, in reality, each Apollo mission has to deal with 300K RAds per
year outside of the Van Allen Belts.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...660003568_1966...
... bottom of page 7 of the pdf
"The wall thickness range from one half to five millimeters of
single aluminum wall."

Yes, it all amounts to 0.3 gram per cm^2

It isn't so much the energy of a single "hit", as it is the
number of hits.

Talking like a used-car salesman you are. shrug

More to the point, you could discuss "hormesis" with them. Where
some of the people exposed to a small amount of nuclear radiation
at Nagasaki or Hiroshima actually had *fewer* cancers, even fewer
of other illnesses / ailments. "Chronic" is not the same as
"acute" in exposure either.

So, you are advocating that an optimal amount of radiation is good for
you health. Hopefully, you would never become the surgeon general.
shrug

But it all leads to them draining you, them becoming ignorant
again (still), and it all starts again.

Yes, the truth hurts. The truth drains you dry if you are deeply
believing in the fallacies. shrug