Jump to content
The Education Forum

Interesting site explains why...


Recommended Posts

That site does not prove anything, except that if you selectively quote and use bad science you can prove anything.

Let's examine some of what was said on the site:

NASA is planning to send astronauts to the moon by the year 2020. However, before they send people to the moon, they want to measure the radiation levels on the moon with an unmanned probe named CRaTER:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/08...oactivemoon.htm

If you read the link, you'll find:

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

"By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps."

When the Apollo programme made manned lunar landings, they were planned to occur during the lowest times of solar flare to minimise any risk of solar radiation. The total exposure of the astronauts was very low, so they don't have the necessary biomedical data to be sure what happens to a human with longer term exposure - the type that will be experienced during extended stay missions on the moon and that will be experienced during a Mars mission.

Why is NASA so secretive about radiation levels in outer space?

They aren't:

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s1ch1.htm

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch1.htm

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s2ch3.htm

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s4ch1.htm

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/s4ch4.htm

http://hdl.handle.net/2002/15909&oaiID=oai..._jsp:2002_15909

http://hdl.handle.net/2002/13298&oaiID=oai..._jsp:2002_13298

http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20040031719&oai...gov:20040031719

and so on. It's there if you bother to look.

However, none of them bothered to measure the radiation.

Wrong again:

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/CRD.htm

Of course, a lot of measurement was done BEFORE they went:

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/orbiter2.htm

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/orbiter5.htm

All 21 Apollo astronauts remained hidden from the public after coming back from the moon. NASA wants us to believe that all 21 astronauts are too shy to give interviews.

Total bullxxxx. For a start, there were 29 astronauts who flew Apollo missions (not including Skylab or ASTP). Of those, 24 orbited the moon. Of those, 12 walked on the lunar surface. After the lunar missions, they went on publicity tours. All have given interviews to varying degrees. Once again, disinformation and a failure to do basic research.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=19871

http://www.astrodigital.org/space/intbean.html

http://www.engology.com/engintaldrin.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...8&dopt=Abstract

http://www.jamesoberg.com/01012001dukeinterview_mar.html

http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/features/jimlovell/

to name but a few

What are the chances that 100% of the Apollo astronauts are so introverted that they are incapable of visiting children in school, going onto television shows to talk about the moon, and giving interviews to reporters?

See above.

The computers of the 1960's would not qualify as computers by today's standards. Rather, they were “electronic adding machines”.

Manufacturing technology was horrible by comparison to what we have today because they did not have computer-controlled milling machines or lathes.

Apart from the author not having the necessary expertise to make such a claim, he can be proved wrong:

How to build your very own Apollo computer: http://agcreplica.outel.org/

http://www.clavius.org/technasa.html

and so on. I'm not going to waste my time showing every little - and BIG - error he has made.

That website is full of it, it should be placed on gardens to promote plant growth.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...