Charity drive to feed the empty heads of the Nasa/moon conspiracy theorists

[emarkp]

Hi again. I tried the experiment with the hole + sunlight. I didn’t want to dig the hole so I tried something else.

I used a book to shade a table from light that was coming in from the door. It’s dark now, so the shaded area was quite dark. Then I took a cardboard tube from a roll of toilet paper and, while holding the bottom in shadow tilted the top toward the light.

A circle of light appeared below the bottom end of the tube.

The circle grew brighter as the tube was tilted more parallel to the light source (as expected) but I made sure that no light was passing directly through.

It was a trivial experiment. BickByro, I suggest you try this yourself. I chose the brown cardboard tube because it has a significantly lower albedo than (say) white index cards.

[Bobort]

(1) I haven’t checked to see if the book cited is legitimate, but if it is, it claims that early tests of Van Allen belt radiation levels (not, I presume, only during periods of major solar activity) concluded that “the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect.” God knows how much the instrument was designed to detect, of course. Still, there are possibilities here.

Geiger-Müller detectors are designed only to detect the presence of radiation. They are very sensitive, but they are pretty useless at quantifying radiation fields. It’s pretty clear that they were not expecting space to be radioactive, so the instrument they were using was probably not designed to function properly in even a small radiation field. I’ve used old G-M detectors that were originally made for civil defense use, and they can be swamped out pretty easily.

It seems worth asking, as the author does, “Apollo 16 was in April 1972 and Apollo 17 was in December 1972. Why would NASA proceed with Apollo 17 just after the August 1972 event and risk astronauts’ lives?”

Why not? Is there any evidence that major solar flares tend to come one right after another? I see no reason why there would be a higher probability of a flare happening then.

“‘During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies.’
From http://flick.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm ‘(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum).’
So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been about 15 solar flares per day!”

First of all, that web page does not exist. In fact most of the references they cite are web pages that do not exist. I don’t necessarily think they’re just making stuff up, but from looking at the references that do exist I see they’re playing quite fast and loose with their interpretations of the quoted material. So without being able read their references in their entirety I can’t accept the conclusions.

This one’s pretty obvious, though, and gets to the heart of why their argument is wrong. They’re basically saying that 1) really intense solar flares can be harmful, and 2) solar flares happen frequently, so therefore being in space for any length of time will kill you. I hope you can see why this is patent nonsense: they’re implicitly assuming that all solar flares are the same magnitude as the really big ones. This is not just an unsupported assertion; it’s blatantly false. They even say they’re “being conservative,” which is insulting.

As for your attempts to calculate the amount of cosmic radiation in space, are you sure you can apply the sea-level-to-Denver numbers all the way up into outer space? Don’t the different layers of our atmosphere contribute differently to radiation protection? And does your factor of 10 come from anywhere in particular? It seems rather arbitrary.

That’s why I used barometric pressure rather than altitude. The amount of shielding is proportional to the density of the material, and the barometric pressure is essentially an integral over the density of the air column above a particular location. The elemental composition makes a small difference, but the elemental composition of the atmosphere is quite uniform if you weight it by density, i.e. the elemental content of the way upper atmosphere is pretty different than what’s down here, but it’s so thin up there it hardly makes any difference in the overall shielding. The purpose of my calculation was to establish an order-of-magnitude estimate, not to get 4 significant figures.

The factor of 10 was also an order-of-magnitude estimate. AFAIK, cosmic rays at earth’s surface consist mostly of gammas, electrons, and muons, plus some other heavier particles. Therefore the quality factor should be about 1, maybe a little higher. In space there are more protons and alpha particles, as well as more exotic stuff like pions. I don’t know what the distribution of particles is, but heavier charged particles tend to have quality factors of about 10. There are still going to be lots of gammas though, and lower Q radiation penetrates shielding more readily than higher Q (more or less by definition), so the overall Q will be a good bit less than 10.

Since I’m just after an order-of-magnitude guess, the question is what makes more sense, a factor of 1, 10, or 100? I did some searching on Van Allen shielding and was unable to find anything that said that the dose rate beyond the Van Allen belts is significantly greater than the dose rate inside. From this, it seems clear that a factor of 10 is the best choice.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Going back to Square One.

Bicky says he wants a non-NASA related link for how much radiation is out there, both in the Van Allen belts and from solar flares.

From the pit thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60779&pagenumber=2

originally posted by BickByro:
**It seems ever more likely to me that there is one very specific way to refute the conspiracy theory, at least to the extent that would satisfy my mind: we need to REALLY know how much radiation is out there. If the number is ridiculously high, it would be a pretty strong point against NASA. If it were reasonably low, it would undercut one of the fundamental arguments of the lunar conspiracy theorists. **

Well, for one thing, specifying that, in a debate about moon landings, any information cannot come from NASA is kind of like specifying that in a debate about the martyrdom of saints, any information cannot come from the Catholic Church. They wrote the book on it, babe.

But anyway. For the Van Allen belts, how about the Mad Scientist Network?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359.As.r.html

I have no clue as to what all these numbers mean, perhaps some kind person (Bobort? if he’s not too burned out) would go look at them and interpret them. I personally find it very confusing that some of the doses are in rads, some in Gys, and some are in mSvs.

However, it looks to me like what he has ARE “definite numbers”. He says it’s tedious, but not impossible, to calculate the energies involved.

And he says, “No, the astronauts were never in any danger of being roasted when they passed through the Van Allen belts.”

There are also links on this page to other non-NASA health and radiation sites, and to papers dealing with radiation exposure of astronauts.

How about these folks, whoever they are?

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html

**The inner one, located between about X = 1.1 - 3.3 Re (Earth radii, geocentric) in the equatorial plane, contains primarily protons with energies exceeding 10 MeV. Flux maximum is at about X = 2 Re. (Distances given here are approximate, since the location of particles is energy dependent.) This is a fairly stable population but it is subject to occasional perturbations due to geomagnetic storms, and it varies with 11-year solar cycle. The source of protons in this region is the decay of cosmic ray induced albedo from the atmosphere.

The outer belt contains mainly electrons with energies up to 10 MeV. It is produced by injection and energization events following geomagnetic storms, which makes it much more dynamic than the inner belt (it is also subject to day-night variations). It has an equatorial distance of about 3 - 9 Re, with maximum for electrons above 1 MeV occurring at about X = 4 Re. ‘Horns’ of the outer belt dip sharply in towards the polar caps.

**

Next point: we know a lot about the Van Allen belts from satellites that we send up to gather data.

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html

**The investigation of the Earth’s radiation environment was one of the main tasks of the CRRES satellite. It has observed, for example, a rapid (1 min) formation of a new radiation belt due to a SSC on 24 March, 1991 (Vampola and Korth, 1992).

**
http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/tech/9412TUSPDM.html

**Pegasus Puts One In Van Allen Belts

APEX was the final Pegasus-launched satellite to launch from a NASA B-52.

EDWARDS AFB, CA–Good news for Pegasus fans. The winged rocket pulled off a picture-perfect launch last August, six weeks after its bigger cousin Pegasus XL malfunctioned (see Tech Update, p.16, Sept. '94). Arcing from the wing of a B-52, the vehicle put a small NASA-Pentagon satellite in an orbit that will allow it to travel through Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts.
The satellite is called APEX, for Advanced Photovoltaic and Electronic Experiments. It is now investigating the effects of radiation on solar panels.**

Next point: radiation from the Van Allen belts can mess up satellites as well as astronauts.

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref_text/chap5im.htm

**Experience has shown that spacecraft (manned or unmanned) in low circular orbits (120­340 mi) receive an insignificant amount of radiation from the Van Allen zones. A satellite in a geosynchronous orbit, however, would be close enough to the center of the outer zone (22,500 mi) to accumulate a hazardous dose. For manned space systems, the spacecraft must be shielded and an orbit that minimizes radiation exposure must be selected. **

http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/radbelts.html

**As a result of the offset between the Earth’s geographical and magnetic axes, the inner belt reaches a minimum altitude of about 250 km above the Atlantic Ocean off the Brazilian Coast. This South Atlantic Anomaly occupies a region through which low-orbiting satellite frequently pass. Energetic particles in this region can be a source of problems for the satellites and astronauts.
<snip>
The radiation belts are of importance primarily because of the harmfull effects of high energy particle radition for man and electronics:

it degrades satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices
it induces background noise in detectors
it induces errors in digital circuits
it induces electrostatic charge-up in insulators
it is also threat to the astronauts
**

Next point. People know how to build satellites with radiation shielding. These are only a few of many websites concerning satellite design that mention the problem of radiation shielding for the Van Allen belts.

http://crsp3.nrl.navy.mil/creme96/cm/ShieldThick.htm
http://www.space.at/htmldocs/frame_m/2_3_1.html
http://www.aticourses.com/small_satellite_design.htm
http://catalog.com/hitekweb/s-cour3.htm

So, Big Question: if we know so much about radiation shielding, why would you think that we wouldn’t know enough about it to adequately protect the astronauts as they passed through the Van Allen belts?

For solar flares, there’s this.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikes/moon/flare.htm

Again, I have no clue as to what the numbers mean.

During my Google searches for all this, several times I came across David Wozney,
http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm

who’s “Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields” has been widely posted on the Web. He’s the the foremost proponent of the “they woulda been FRIED!” theory. However, I think it’s useful to point out that his “they woulda been FRIED!” is referring to solar flares and cosmic rays, not the Van Allen belts. There is never any suggestion that I can see that the radiation from the Van Allen belts would have “fried” the astronauts. I think you are conflating these two factoids.

And to address his issue of “how could NASA send those astronauts out into such unknown dangers from cosmic rays?”, I will confine myself to saying that everybody involved knew the risks, and decided to go ahead with it anyway. In the early days of the space program, the first astronauts were recruited from the ranks of test pilots, the guys who truly enjoyed pushing the edge of the envelope. Adrenalin junkies, you know? So I think NASA did the best it could, by way of giving the astronauts adequate shielding against solar flares, and decided to take the risk that they might have misjudged how dangerous it would be.

There’s also this, from this Climatic Research Unit - Groups and Centres - UEA

**I have been unable to find any direct documentation on the degree of risk taken by the Apollo astronauts with regard to solar flare events while they were beyond the protective bounds of the Van Allen belts. I can only attribute this to a reluctance to highlight the stupidity of running a lunar campaign during solar maximum, when the flare risk is highest. They had no choice in the timing, as Kennedy had set the deadline of “before the decade is out.”

**

NASA doesn’t really know what the danger point is for cosmic rays and solar flares. They can make an educated guess, but hey, they’ve only been doing this a short while. We know how much radiation from radium or thorium it takes to make you sick because we’ve been studying it for a hundred years. But as for cosmic rays, we’re just getting started, and the opportunities for experiment and observation are limited.

Last point. Was the Pegasus satellite launch, mentioned above, a hoax? Is this UNEX story a hoax, too? 'Cause the UM sure is busting its buttons about it. They’re awfully nice people, I hate to think of them as merely dupes of the ongoing NASA conspiracy. What happens if they go up there and find out that there really IS enough radiation in the Van Allen belts that the astronauts really would have been fried? Then what will NASA do?

http://www1.umn.edu/tc/brief/1998-09-23.html

**The U has been chosen by NASA for a space mission to the massive Van Allen radiation belts surrounding Earth. Launch is planned for mid-2001 aboard an Air Force Titan IV rocket. The U project, along with one from the U of California, Berkeley, was chosen from 44 proposals nationwide for the new University-class Explorers (UNEX) program. Five-year grant, for $13 million, is one of the largest the U has ever received.

Van Allen belts wreak havoc on spacecraft and satellite communications but also play a role in generating spectacularly beautiful auroras. The U will send a spacecraft into the heart of the Van Allen belts to study the forces at work there. UNEX is designed to provide frequent flight opportunities for specific, relatively inexpensive science missions involving students. With only 3 years to launch, the project will allow many students to be involved from start to finish. “This is part of NASA’s effort to do more science for less money,” said principal investigator John Wygant, assistant professor of physics.

“We’ve been building space experiments here since the 1950s,” said project manager Keith Goetz, a physicist. “But this is the first time we’ve been responsible for all aspects of a satellite project from beginning to end.”**

The answer, of course, is that satellites have gone up there many times and found that no, there isn’t that much radiation in the Van Allen belts.

And the answer to, “The astronauts couldn’t really have been up there, because if they were, they’d have been fried by the solar flares” is, “They were up there, and they got lucky. Their appearances out of the shelter of the space capsule and the lander coincided with periods of fewer rays, and their shielding was adequate for the rays they did receive, and hey–God smiled on the American space program.”

[jab1]

Way to go, DDG!

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Bicky:
**By the way, don’t know if you’ve ever been to an observatory, but there are hardly “thousands” of people manning them. They’re really pretty lonely places. **

originally posted by Friedo
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=60144&pagenum ber=3
The “thousands” of people I was referring to were the people at the various radio observatories outside the US, and all the communication and networking engineers bringing all the telescopes together in one network.

How many observatories (telescopes) are there in the world? How many pairs of eyes would have been watching the 1969 moon shot? Well, here’s a partial list. Under “observatories”.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Observatories/

Rainwater Observatory and Planetarium - primarily focused on education for amateur astronomers, school science classes, or local community groups.
Adam Mickiewicz University - Astronomical Observatory
Air Force Maui Optical Station (AMOS) (2)
Andromeda Observatory
Andromeda Observatory - Fort Davis, TX - for astronomy, bird watching, photography, and sight seeing.
Anglo-Australian Observatory (AAO) - includes a wide range of astronomical images.
Apache Point Observatory - located in the Sacramento Mountains in the Lincoln National Forest, 18 miles south of Cloudcroft, NM.
Arizona Aerial Observatory Tour - This site contains images of all of Arizona’s major obervatories scanned in from slides taken from a Cessna 172.
Armagh Observatory
Astronomical Institute and National Observatory of Athens
Astronomy in Latvia
Beijing Astronomical Observatory (BAO) - engaged in astrophysical research. The instruments of BAO are operated in Xinglong, Huairou and Miyun stations.
Black Forest Observatory - offers sky tours by private reservation and resources on BFO’s educational space mission.
Bureau des longitudes - Server dedicated mainly to the study of motion of solar system objects Ephemeris will be soon available on this server
Burke-Gaffney Observatory - Public and teaching observatory at Saint Mary’s University
Calar Alto Observatory
Caltech Submillimeter Observatory - a 10.4-meter single-dish submillimeter telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii operated by Caltech for the astronomical community under contract from the National Science Foundation.
CCD Imaging Facility - astronomical imaging with a research Ritchie- Chretien telescope and CCD camera.
Cecil and Ida Green Piñon Flat Observatory
Cloudbait Observatory - a robotic observatory under construction in Colorado.
College of Staten Island Astrophysical Observatory - provides an overview of the observatory and research info on asteroids.
Columbus Optical SETI Observatory - contains extensive documentation on the Optical Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (OSETI) and the activities of the observatory.
Copenhagen University Observatory
Copernicus Kintaro Observatory - We specialize in the dog star.
Custer Institute and Observatory - amateur astronomy education center located on The North Fork of Long Island.
David Dunlap Observatory - database of galactic classical cepheids.
Degenhardt Amateur User Facility - Operated by amateur astronomers, it is available for use by any amateur or profesional astronomer.
Discovery Park Gov Aker Observatory - offers visitors an opportunity to explore the fascinating science of astronomy.
Dominion Astrophysical Observatory@
Dunsink Observatory
Estacion Astronomica Rio Grande - Argentina
European Southern Observatory Portal - ESO (2)
Fairborn Observatory - automatic telescopes in the Patagonia Mountains near Washington Camp, Arizona.
Florence and George Wise Observatory (Israel) - owned and operated by Tel-Aviv University.
Givatayim Observatory - devoted to reasearch and study in astronomy and science. Includes listing of upcoming talks.
Goodsell Observatory at Carleton College - information and lots of CCD images and the latest sky information.
Griffith Observatory
Grove Creek Observatory - CCD Astronomical Images, information on astronomy tours in Australia
Hill Observatory - description of construction steps for a back yard observatory.
Jagiellonian University Astronomical Observatory - Scientific research here comprises radio and extragalactic astronomy, solar radio emission, active galactic nuclei, interstellar matter, galaxies, cosmology, variable stars and comets.
Japanese National Astronomical Observatory
JHU/SDSS Welcome
John C. Hook Memorial Observatory
Keck Observatory (2)
Kitt Peak National Observatory (3)
Kopernik Space Education Center - operating observatory open to the public. Hands-on science classes are offered to K-12 students as well as to adults.
La Palma Observatory - part of the Isaac Newton Group of telescopes; site includes info on the island of La Palma.
La Plata Observatory
La Silla Observatory - located in the Chilean Andes. Houses a set of more than 15 astronomical instruments devoted to explore the southern sky.
Las Brisas Observatory - a private observatory located high in the Rocky Mountains. Includes Schmidt camera photographs of comets and nebula.
Lester B. Pearson College Observatory
Linden Observatory - information and background information.
Lucile Miller Observatory - your gateway to the skies in the Catawba Valley in North Carolina. We welcome all groups and individuals.
Lund Observatory
Martz Astronomical Ass. & Observatory - containing information for beginning stargazers and on public events.
Mauna Kea Observatories (11)
McCormick Observatory - information on Public Nights at and the history of the Leander J. McCormick Observatory and the Fan Mountain Observatory at the University of Virginia
Mills Observatory - public observatory, including pictures, information on the planets, and an astronomy quiz.
Millstone Hill Observatory
MIT Haystack Observatory
Monterey Institute for Research in Astronomy - non-profit astronomical observatory dedicated to research and education in astronomy.
Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories@
Mount Wilson Observatory (3)
Mt Laguna Observatory - Mt Laguna Observatory, operated by San Diego State University, and located 40 miles east of San Diego at an elevation of over 1800 meters.
Mt. Graham International Observatory (MGIO)
Museo de Astronomia y Ciencias del Espacio - Venezuela - take a virtual tour of the facilities, look at an astronomical calendar, or check on museum events; site is in Spanish and English. Located at the Llano del Hato National Observatory.
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center
National Optical Astronomy Observatories (4)
National Undergraduate Research Observatory@
NEAT: Near-Earth Asteroid Tracking - project to autonomously search for near-Earth and Earth-crossing asteroids using a computer controlled telescope, a CCD camera, and NEAT software.
NF/ Observatory - about the observatory, pictures, projects, and the observatory’s 20-foot aeolian wind harp.
NOAO Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory - located about 500km north of Santiago, Chile, about 70km east of La Serena, at an altitude of 2200 meters. On site are six optical telescopes, and one radio telescope.
Norman Lockyer Observatory & Planetarium - historic astronomical observatory and planetarium operated by The Norman Lockyer Observatory Society.
Observatoire de Haute-Provence (OHP) - Observing facilities at OHP (1m93, 1m52, 1m20 telescopes): manuals, schedules. Publications. User’s Guide. Lettre de l’OHP.
Observatoire de Lyon
Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington - main offices located in Pasadena, California, with observatories located in Chile and Palomar.
Observatorio Astronomico Nacional de Colombia
Observatorio Astronomico Nacional of Spain - operates optical and radio telescopes in Spain. Astronomers conduct research in star formation and evolution, ISM, galaxies, and VLBI.
Observatorio Nacional - Brazil - the ON is an institute for research in Astronomy, Astrophysics and Geophysics, operating under the administration of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. (CNPq).
Observatory at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs - A small facility for research and teaching.
Palomar Observatory@
Paris Observatory Server
Perugia University Astronomical Observatory - in English and Italian.
Pieri Astronomy Observatory
Puckett Observatory - specializes in photographing comets and deep sky objects. Also home of the Cometwatch program.
Ritter Planetarium and Brooks Observatory - University of Toledo - offers several opportunities for the people of the Metro Toledo community to learn more about astronomy.
Royal Greenwich Observatory
Royal Observatory Of Belgium
Royal Observatory, Edinburgh
SAO/TDC Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Slottsskogen Observatory
Sonoma State University Observatory - Free Public Viewing Nights; Automated telescope with CCD imaging system and 14" telescope.
South African Astronomical Observatory
Southeastern Association for Research in Astronomy, The - SARA has recommissioned a 0.9-m telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory near Tucson, Arizona for CCD imaging, photometry and polarimetry.
Southern Sky Observatory
Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences (SAO RAS) - the country’s main centre for ground-based space research, located in the South of Russia, in the Caucasus mountains of Karachaevo-Cherkesia.
Steward Observatory - University of Arizona - undergraduate and graduate degrees in astronomy and astrophysics; major research facilities in observational and theoretical astronomy.
Stockholm Observatory@
Strasbourg Astronomical Observatory (2)
Thueringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg
Tololito Observatory - located at La Serena, Chile, and devoted to amateur astronomy.
Tycho Brahe Observatory - in Swedish and English.
U.S. Naval Observatory (USNO)@
UCO/Lick Observatory@
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia - Astronomical Observatory
University of Texas - McDonald Observatory@
Université Laval - Liquid Mirror - A 2.5m diameter Liquid Mirror is thoroughly tested in our tower in Universite Laval.
UTC Clerence T. Jones Observatory - open to public Friday nights to observe.
Van Vleck Observatory - Wesleyan University
Vatican Observatory (Vatican City)
VLBI Space Observatory Programme - a radio astronomy space mission.
Volkssterrenwacht Mira (Mira public observatory), Grimbergen, Belgium - Visit the observatory with our virtual tour.
Warren Rupp Observatory - one of the largest amateur operated telescopes.
Web Directory: Astronomical Observatories
Western Observatorium
Whipple Observatory - Located near Amado, Arizona on Mount Hopkins.
Windowpane Observatory - names galaxies and searches for supernovae in them.
Worth Hill Observatory - Worth Matravers, UK - privately owned observatory open to school parties and group visits.
Yerkes Observatory

Under “solar observatories”

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Research/Observatories/Solar_Observatories/
Amateur Solar Observatory - includes butterfly diagrams of sun.
Big Bear Solar Observatory - daily images of the sun, a tour of the observatory, and various movies (MPEG), images, and links related to solar astronomy.
Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network (BiSON) - current status and recent results and publications based on BiSON data, in the field of helioseismology.
Mees Solar Observatory - Daily and archival data from Mees Solar Observatory, including white light images, Ca k-line images, and vector magnetograms.
Mt. Wilson Observatory - solar tower, four types of images updated daily. Access to the High Degree Helioseismology Network (HiDHN).
National Solar Observatory - part of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories. NSO operates two major observatory sites.
National Solar Observatory - Sacramento Peak
San Fernando Solar Observatory - a full-time research observatory dedicated to the study of our nearest star, the Sun. Our main research interests are solar variability and solar magnetic fields.
Sea of Galilee Astrophysical Observatory - focuses on solar and stellar flare research as well as guiding students in their astronomy research projects.
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) (2)

Under “telescopes”.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Research/Observatories/Telescopes/

Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope - a 3.6 meter optical/infrared telescope located atop the summit of Mauna Kea.
Conversion Factors, Material Properties and Constants Related to Telescope Design
Hobby-Eberly Telescope - a tilted Arecibo-type optical telescope tailored for spectroscopy.
James Clerk Maxwell Telescope - 15-m diameter telescope designed specifically to operate in the sub-mm region of the spectrum.
Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) - project to construct a binocular telescope consisting of two 8.4 meter mirrors on a common mount.
Lord Rosse and the Birr Castle Telescopes - story of their construction and discoveries.
MMT Observatory - the 4.5 m Multiple Mirror Telescope is being replaced by a new 6.5 m telescope.
Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) - a 2.6 m telescope located at La Palma, Canary Islands, operated jointly by the Nordic countries.
University of California, Santa Barbara Remotely Operated Telescope - a Computer Controlled Celestron 14-inch telescope with a digital camera mounted on its back.
University of Hawaii 2.2-meter Telescope

Under “automated and robotic telescopes”.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Research/Observatories/Telescopes/Automated_and_Robotic/

Automated Astronomy Group - Tennessee State University - uses automatic telescopes to study a variety of astronomical problems.
Automated Telescope Facility - University of Iowa
Berkeley Automated Imaging Telescopes (BAIT) - unattended astronomical telescopes with electronic cameras to search for supernovae and monitor the brightness of celestial objects.
Bradford Robotic Telescope - anyone on the Internet can register and ask the telescope to look at anything in the northern night sky. Located high on the moors in West Yorkshire, England.
Hanna City Robotic Observatory
Italian Robotic Antarctic Infrared Telescope (IRAIT)
MicroObservatory - a network of five automated telescopes that can be controlled over the Internet. Enrollment is currently by invitation only.
Nassau Station Robotic Telescope - Case Western Reserve University - with an online interface allowing automatic observations by the general public.
NF/ Observatory - an automated radio-linked 17.5 inch telescope housed in a movable dome.

Under “infrared telescopes”

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Research/Observatories/Infrared/Telescopes/

Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope - a 3.6 meter optical/infrared telescope located atop the summit of Mauna Kea.
FIRST: The Far Infra-Red and Submillimetre Telescope (1)
Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) - operates at wavelengths from 2.5 - 240 microns. A project of the European Space Agency.
Italian Robotic Antarctic Infrared Telescope (IRAIT)
NASA Infrared Telescope Facility - a 3-meter infrared telescope located at an altitude of 14,000 feet on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) (2)
ROKCAM Observing Manual - a near infrared imager developed for the 2.7m Harlan Smith telescope at the McDonald Observatory.
SIRTF: Space InfraRed Telescope Facility - planned to be a cryogenically cooled observatory to conduct infrared astronomy from space.
SOFIA: Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy - will be a 747 carrying a 2.5m Infrared Telescope for research and education/public outreach.
UKIRT: United Kingdom InfraRed Telescope - the largest telescope in the world dedicated solely to observations at infrared wavelengths between 1 micron and 30 microns.

Under “radio telescopes”.

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Radio_Astronomy/Observatories/Telescopes/

Mini 1.2 Meter Radio Telescope - research telescope in the Boston area used to make maps of the Milky Way.

Under “space-based telescopes”
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Research/Observatories/Telescopes/Space_Based/

ASCA: Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics - X-ray spectroscopy of astrophysical plasmas, especially the analysis of discrete features such as emission lines and absorption edges.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory@
Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory Science Support Center@
Constellation-X - an X-ray observatory that will study supermassive black holes and the life cycles of matter throughout the Universe.
Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer - first two NASA University Explorer (UNEX) space science missions. CHIPS will map the local interstellar bubble.
GLAST: Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope@
Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) - the telescope has flown twice aboard the Space Shuttle as part of a package of instruments called the Astro Observatory.
Hubble Space Telescope (26)
Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) - operates at wavelengths from 2.5 - 240 microns. A project of the European Space Agency.
Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST)@
ROSAT: The ROentgen SATellite@
SIRTF: Space InfraRed Telescope Facility - planned to be a cryogenically cooled observatory to conduct infrared astronomy from space.
SWAS: Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite - the principle objective of the mission is to better understand the process of star formation through observations of water, molecular oxygen, isotopic carbon monoxide, and atomic carbon.
XMM: X-ray Multi-Mirror - European Space Agency satellite carrying three advanced X-ray telescopes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay. Now, granted, probably not all of these observatories and telescopes were around in July of 1969. But here’s my point. I’ll bet that when you, Bicky, think “observatory”, you’re visualizing something like Mt. Wilson, the big building with the dome. However, there are lots and lots of smaller observatories all around the world. (Where the heck is Adam Mickiewicz University, and why do they have an Astronomical Observatory? ) In July of 1969, anybody who had access to a big telescope, like the one at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, would have been pulling strings like mad to be the one with his eye glued to the eyepiece when Neil Armstrong stepped out the door and clambered down the ladder. (And at places like the Degenhardt Amateur User Facility, there was probably blood on the floor… )

And with all of these telescopes being trained on the Moon, straining to see them as they came around from the dark side every time, wouldn’t you think someone would have noticed, “Hey, they’re not in orbit around the Moon at all, they’re just in Earth orbit!”

And this is even more relevant for Apollo 13. Don’t you think that anyone with access to a telescope had his eyes glued to that tiny speck of light that was a space capsule, waiting to see somebody die?

If it turns out that you couldn’t spot the various Moon missions from the Earth, then of course I withdraw the suggestion. But here’s a website from a guy who took videos of meteorites hitting the moon, and he’s only got a 5 inch telescope. His friend has a 14 inch and presumably got better quality videos.

http://iota.jhuapl.edu/lunar_leonid/index2.html

Never underestimate the power of the obsessive amateur, Bicky. Here in Central Illinois, astronomy buffs have to get in the car and drive for miles to get to a place with no mercury vapor lamps so they can see the stars, but drive they do. In 1969 they may not have had the technology to take videos of the moon, but there certainly were plenty of backyard astronomers out there with good-quality telescopes, watching the Moon shot.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

How do we identify moon rocks? What distinguishes them from other 4 billion year old earth rocks?

How they store and test moon rocks.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/publications/pages/rocks.html

Most of the minerals found in the Moon rocks had already been examined and characterized during routine geological investigations of rocks found here on the Earth. The exception was three minerals that could only have been produced under the extreme conditions found on the Moon. A new mineral rich in titanium and iron oxides was named armalcolite after Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, and Michael Collins, crew members of Apollo 11, the first mission to successfully land on the Moon. Rocks found in the lunar highlands are generally rich in the common white mineral feldspar that is composed of calcium and aluminum silicates. A highly unusual class of rocks found in the highlands was given the nickname KREEP (1, 2) after its unique composition of potassium (K), rare-earth elements (REE), and phosphorus (P).

Am I to believe that this is untrue? They didn’t really find three new minerals?

Serious geology stuff. Brace yourself.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/ht380/page015.htm

**However, lunar rocks are easy to distinguish from terrestrial rocks. Except that lunar rocks have a complete lack of water, they also have a common presence of metallic iron and the ratios of certain chemical trace elements, like lithium, berilium, uranium and many more, are typical for lunar rocks.

Compared with terrestrial pyroxenes the lunar pyroxene is much more Fe-rich. The lower part of the pyroxene triangle is shown again in figure 17 which ilustrates three different sites on Earth.

The lunar basalt plagioclase feldspar have a much higher anorthite composition then the terrestrials.

The lunar plagioclase contains more aliminum then the terrestrial ones.

**

There’s more, but I think you get the idea. Am I to believe that NASA gave this guy some rock samples from Canada, and he took them home and tested them, and they just happen to be totally different from any terrestrial rocks?

Here’s more on the composition of moon rocks.
http://musmin.geo.uniroma1.it/raphael/gisements/extra/GISEXTe.htm

And now I’ll explain the thing about the “water in the rocks”. IANA geologist, but I read a lot, and this is just off the top of my head.

Rocks like granite are what we call “igneous” rocks. They are formed by being melted deep within the Earth’s core and then brought to the surface by various tectonic forces.

http://geology.csupomona.edu/alert/igneous/granite.htm

Granite is a coarse or medium-grained intrusive igneous rock that is rich in quartz and feldspar (k-feldspar and plagioclase); it is the most common plutonic rock of the Earth’s crust, forming by the cooling of magma (silicate melt) at depth.

It’s not “lava”, it’s different stuff. If you want to know what granite looks like, go downtown and look at the bank that was built around 1900, or the post office, or the library. It’s usually gray, but sometimes it’s pink, or kind of a nifty black and white speckled.

When it comes to the surface as melted rock, if there’s water around at the time, in the climate, on the planet’s surface, (not necessarily just as a lake or pond, okay?), then some of the water molecules get incorporated into the rock, at the crystalline level. There are actually molecules of water trapped between the molecules of feldspar, quartz, etc. So scientists can test pieces of rock to see whether there are water molecules in there.

The moon rocks don’t have any molecules of water, therefore they were formed in the absence of water.

Okay. Next–How Rocks Are Made.
The oldest rocks on earth are in Canada.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years)

And the thing is, these are all gneisses, which is a kind of granite. Granite, you remember, is formed by rock melting deep within the Earth and being pushed to the surface. So, before you could have molten rock, you have to have some rock to melt, right? You don’t just wave a magic wand and say, “Let there be molten rock”. The rock got melted because plate tectonics pushed the crustal edge of a continent down under another continent, and the rock slowly melted. Then millions of years later it came up again as new rock. Are you following this? I dunno about you but it boggled MY mind the first time I heard about it. It’s like a conveyor belt, rock getting melted and reforming and getting pushed down and melting and reforming and coming back up, millions of years later.

So those old Canadian rocks originally came from even older rock. And so that’s how rocks are made. AFAIK there isn’t any way to artificially duplicate that process. Different kinds of rocks all have distinctive chemical characteristics, so much iron, so much plagioclase, etc., and they all have different crystalline structures, that you can check under the microscope. If you tried to “make” rocks, they’d have a distinctive appearance under the microscope, or even under the electron microscope. Jewelers can tell the difference between artificial rubies and real rubies just by looking closely at their structure under a microscope.

Here’s some more technical stuff comparing moon rocks with earth rocks. Are these people making it up, too? Or are they just the dupes of NASA, who fobbed them off with rocks from Canada? Don’t you think they’d recognize the chemical composition of Acasta Gneiss? For one thing, acasta gneiss has distinctive little bits of zircon in it, that they can use to date the samples.

http://wwwrsphysse.anu.edu.au/nuclear/99report/Planetary.html

[jab1]

This link will tell you how we discovered the Van Allen radiation belts in the first place. They were discovered by the USA’s very first artificial satellites, the Explorer series, all the way back in 1958. E. 1 was designed and built by a team of scientists from the University of Iowa. The leader of the team was [drum roll] James Van Allen.

E. 1 had a geiger counter on board to look for low-energy cosmic rays, particles too weak to penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere and be detected on the surface. IOW, the scientists were looking for one thing and found another, which happens quite often.

[friedo]

Hi. Bick, from what I’ve seen, you still have not addressed the line-of-site issues with the radio telescopes. Again, there is no way this could have been faked unless several countries were also in on the conspiracy.

There were two radio telescopes in Australia participating. Neil Armstrong’s first step on the moon (and his famous fumbled line) were broadcast to the world from Honeysuckle Creek in Australia, and from six minutes therafter and for the rest of the moonwalk, the images were transmitted from Parkes. (link)

It seems rediculous to me that the hoaxers would trust Australia with faking the most important part of whole mission!

In NASA’s press kit for Apollo 11 (PDF files, part 1, part 2), the details for the communications network are given quite clearly:

For Apollo 11, MSFN [Manned Space Flight Network] will use 17 ground stations, four ships and six to eight jet aircraft – all directly or indirectly linked with Mission Control Center in Houston. While the Earth turns on its axis and the Moon travels in orbit nearly one quarter million miles away and Apollo 11 moves between them, ground controllers will be kept in the closest possible contact. Thus, only for some 45 minutes as the spacecraft flies behind the Moon in each orbit, will this link with Earth be out of reach…

Depending on the launch azimuth, the 30-foot antennas will keep tabs on Apollo 11, beginning with the station at Merritt Island, thence Grand Bahama Island; Bermuda; tracking ship Vanguard; the Canary Islands; Carnarvon; Australia; Hawaii; another tracking ship; Guaymas; Mexico; and Corpus Christi, Tex.

[sup]Page 178, Apollo 11 Press Kit[/sup].

(Note that this excperpt does not mention how many actual observatories are in each country; Australia had two, Parkes and Honeysuckle, and I believe Mexico also had two.)

There were foreign people at all those observatories in Australia, Mexico, etc., and there were likely hundreds of Navy personell on each tracking ship, and Air Force personell on each aircraft.

[BickByro]

[Learning how to use helpful SDMB features] Hooray for Duck Duck Goose, I say. That’s more information than you can shake a stick at!

As for whether you could have observed the astronauts sailing around the moon, I doubt it, since apparently you can’t see any of the debris they left behind. So for as many observatories as there are, we still don’t know how many would have found cause to be looking at the moon during the missions, and whether they would have known the difference one way or the other. But if ANYBODY was actually monitoring the radio transmissions directly from the moon (and, as Sam Stone rather gruffly pointed out, it looks like there were), then it doesn’t really matter whether you could see the orbiting capsule from earth. I’ve been really busy at work the past few days and haven’t had time to assimilate all the data, but I am very interested in Sam Stone’s contention that there could not have been a “moon repeater” due to the Doppler-shift factor of the traveling spacecraft.

Venkman (if you’re listening): I forgot to mention before how much I appreciated your comment that, even if we found ONE unassailable argument against the conspiracy, “it would still be a good exercise to explain why the different conspiracy theories are incorrect.” I wish I would have put it in those words earlier.

As for your examination of the Luna Ticks site, I think you found the same problem I did, but simply weren’t as offended by it. If the lunar surface offers, as you suggest, “insignificant” amounts of fill lighting (though emarkp would obviously argue this point), why does Luna Ticks bother tacking it on to the list of explanations for the apparent illumination of the astronauts and LEM? Why not just give the REAL reason (i.e. the ‘significant’ light source)? It seems like excuse-making once Luna Ticks starts piling on any possible illumination factor (most participants in this thread seemed to agree that earthshine, though brighter than moonshine, would not have done the trick) in an effort to make what ought to be a much simpler point. It’s just poor debunking, IMHO.

Fenris: I know we’re discussing two phenomena (diffusion and reflection). The problem is, I don’t know where one starts and the other stops (i.e. what percentage of “fill” lighting in NYC is diffused and what percentage is reflected). Maybe with all the new posts I’ll be able to figure that out.

Bobort: There isn’t evidence (that I’m aware of, anyway) that major solar flares come one right after another, no. But it IS known that during a solar maximum, flares of all levels of strength are more frequent. Considering that a flare had been observed which would have definitely killed any moonwalking astronauts, you’d think NASA would have proceeded with more caution. More on this later…

*Originally posted by Bobort *
I hope you can see why this is patent nonsense: they’re implicitly assuming that all solar flares are the same magnitude as the really big ones.

Yay! I did it! But addressing your point… they actually say:

‘On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding.’ So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts."

They’re not being TOTALLY outlandish there, are they?

[BickByro]

That’s right, I forgot…

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
There’s also this, from this Climatic Research Unit - Groups and Centres - UEA

**I have been unable to find any direct documentation on the degree of risk taken by the Apollo astronauts with regard to solar flare events while they were beyond the protective bounds of the Van Allen belts. I can only attribute this to a reluctance to highlight the stupidity of running a lunar campaign during solar maximum, when the flare risk is highest. They had no choice in the timing, as Kennedy had set the deadline of “before the decade is out.”

**

Understand that the following comment is in no way meant to reflect a belief in the conspiracy theory:

So we can accept that NASA is incredibly stupid, but not that they are liars? And that they would have more-or-less knowingly sent a bunch of astronauts to their deaths to meet Kennedy’s capricious goal (what was he gonna do, rise from the grave?) but they wouldn’t have lied to do so? I guess you guys are right; NASA really is an honorable institution. People shouldn’t bash it so much.

[Bobort]

There isn’t evidence (that I’m aware of, anyway) that major solar flares come one right after another, no. But it IS known that during a solar maximum, flares of all levels of strength are more frequent. Considering that a flare had been observed which would have definitely killed any moonwalking astronauts, you’d think NASA would have proceeded with more caution. More on this later…

So we can accept that NASA is incredibly stupid, but not that they are liars? And that they would have more-or-less knowingly sent a bunch of astronauts to their deaths to meet Kennedy’s capricious goal

Hold on here–we still don’t have any hard, numerical data on the probability of solar flares causing the astronauts harm. It makes no sense to condemn NASA without this information. If we can establish that NASA knew about the risk but failed to do an analysis, or if they did an analysis and found a significant risk, then we can call them stupid. We have done neither.

Here is some actual data, from a LANL report about manned missions to mars:

Depending upon the year of the mission, the dose to the crew in free space will range between .45 Sv/yr to 1.2 Sv/yr for years of solar maximum and solar minimum respectively.

So assuming a 10-day mission during the solar maximum, the dose would be ~3.3 rem. No health problems there.

About the “low energy” thing: what the hell does “low energy” actually mean? I don’t have access to their source, so I have no idea. The intensity of solar flares varies over several orders of magnitude, so “low energy” is not adequately descriptive. Does “low” mean that the flare was less energetic than the mean? I seriously doubt it, given their numbers. Is it “low” in comparison to the really huge solar flares? More likely, I think. What’s the probability of such a “low energy” flare occuring during a 10-day interval? Did a flare of that magnitude actually occur during any of the Apollo missions? Their result is meaningless without these other data.

[Bobort]

By the way, the quote comes from about halfway down the page, the last paragraph under the heading “FAST MISSION TO MARS.”

Also, there should be a [sic] at the end of the quote, since they got maximum and minimum backwards.

[Icerigger]

You know Brick that eventually some nation or corporation is going to send a lunar orbiter or rover to completely map the surface at high resolution. The gear from the Apollo missions will get photographed eventually, what will you say then? Why has it not been done before? Money. With a very tight science budget the moon is just too boring compared with Mars or Jupiter. All the Apollo artifacts WILL be directly seen eventually then the fight will be like the Titanic’s artifacts, do we retrieve them for sale or display. I can see it now, FOX network presents: The Lunar Flag, can we start the bidding at $1000.00.

BTW My next door neighbor was a technician aboard one of the Apollo tracking ships
monitoring it’s radio transmissions from mid ocean. I guess he is in on it as well. I will keep an eye out for black helicopters! OMG where is Elliot Gould???

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

I find myself wondering how much proof you’re going to need, Bicky. I just gave you three whopping posts (sorry about that, folks, my bad) full of 3 really good logical reasons why the moon landings were not a hoax, and you’re back at me with yet another, “Yes, but…” And you wonder why people get a tad irritable…

By your own admission, just now, Sam Stone was “probably right” about the fact that people were listening in on radio frequencies all over the world.

But if ANYBODY was actually monitoring the radio transmissions directly from the moon (and, as Sam Stone rather gruffly pointed out, it looks like there were), then it doesn’t really matter whether you could see the orbiting capsule from earth.

Isn’t that one fact alone enough proof? Are you going to demand that every little point the conspiracy theorists have raised be addressed, be proved, be shown to be true or false? Sheesh, then I want 12 people just like you on the jury when I go on trial for something.

So we could all sit here on our computer chairs and go, “There’s this, and this, and this,,” but as soon as we get to something that, in your opinion, can’t be explained, you’re going to just ignore all our other logical proofs and go with the conspiracy theory? You’re not going to allow yourself to be convinced, but instead you’re going to bring up some other little nitpicky detail? You’re saying that one thing left unexplained carries more weight than one logical proof?

Geologists don’t really understand how plate tectonics works. They have not been able to explain exactly what it is that drives the plates. But they have logical proof for continental drift–you can go out to the Carrizo Plain in California and watch the San Andreas fault in action.

http://activetectonics.la.asu.edu/carrizo/cargeo.html

So, you would say, “Well, until they can explain what drives the plates, I’m not going to believe in plate tectonics”?

**…but I am very interested in Sam Stone’s contention that there could not have been a “moon repeater” due to the Doppler-shift factor of the traveling spacecraft.

**

You’re saying, “Well, okay, maybe people were listening in to transmissions from the Moon from around the world–but until you can explain how NASA couldn’t have faked the transmissions using a moon repeater, I’m not going to believe the moon landings were real.” You’ll take Sam’s word for one thing and not for another? Here is what he said (above):

originally posted by Sam Stone:
**Now, on to the Amateur radio reception: As I said, many people tracked the Apollo missions as the Command Module orbited the moon. PLEASE explain how NASA managed to fake this. A relay satellite doesn’t work, because we’d pick up the broadcasts from Earth (and potentially, pick them up after they bounced off the moon - moonbounce transmission is common).

It can’t be a fixed relay station from a lander on the moon, because the signal doppler-shifts as the Command Module orbits the moon. And an 18 ft dish is tight enough to pick up fluctuations in signal strength as the spacecraft passes through the center of the dish. So it HAS to be something in orbit, transmitting audio that’s coming from somewhere other than Earth. **

What more do you need explained about this? Even I understand it, and I’m only a housewife from Illinois. Doppler shift means the way the sound of a train whistle changes in pitch as it comes towards you and then moves away. People on earth were listening to the radio transmissions, which were supposedly coming from moon orbit. If those transmissions had been actually coming from something in Earth orbit, somebody, somewhere would have noticed. There are ways to tell where a radio signal is coming from.

Okay. So, if the radio signal had been originating from something actually in earth orbit, and NASA had forwarded the signal from there to something stationary on the moon’s surface, and then they bounced it from the moon’s surface back to the listening people on Earth, the signal would have changed–doppler shifted–as the moon went round and round. And, it would have shifted differently from the way a signal from the Apollo module would have shifted. There were people listening who do this for a living–do you think somebody wouldn’t have noticed the difference? They would have known what a Doppler shift coming from something in orbit around the moon would be like, and they would have known what a Doppler shift coming from something stationary on the moon would be like.

You know, Bicky, it strikes me that this whole thing is like having you say, “Lewis and Clark didn’t really explore the Pacific Northwest”. And then we say, “Yes, they did, lots of people saw them go and saw them come back, and wrote about it in their journals, which we have today, and they brought back all kinds of specimens, which we also have today,” and you say, “Yes, but…” and then you bring up something like, “How do you know those journals in the Library of Congress aren’t faked?” or “How do you know those prairie dog skins in the Smithsonian are really from 1803?” When you say things like that, we don’t know what to do with you. Are you kidding? Are you serious? What?

Still, I am not giving up on you just yet. I am going to go over to GQ and ask if anybody knows what size telescope you would have needed to be able to follow the 1969 moon shot from Earth.

*Originally posted by BickByro *
**Understand that the following comment is in no way meant to reflect a belief in the conspiracy theory:

**
Eh, you’re giving an awfully good impression of a person who believes. By this point, I find myself wondering, “What does he really want from us? Facts? Or just conversation?”

I understand that you’re enjoying the conversation, but maybe it’s time for you to move over to MPSIMS or IMHO and start a thread for “I believe the moon landings were a hoax–who’s with me?”

So we can accept that NASA is incredibly stupid, but not that they are liars? And that they would have more-or-less knowingly sent a bunch of astronauts to their deaths to meet Kennedy’s capricious goal…

Dunno how old you are, Bicky, but I’m forty-something, and I’ve seen more government institutions get caught in incredible stupidities more times than I care to think about. Yeah, I would accept that NASA is incredibly stupid, and yes, they would have taken an incredible risk with men’s lives just for the sake of national prestige. This is nothing new, Bick, it’s called “war”. And we were in the middle of a war, called the Cold War.

And yes, I’d believe that NASA faked the moon landings, no problem, IF, got that? IF there weren’t tons and tons and TONS of physical evidence to prove otherwise, not to mention the witnesses, the testimony, at the time and in the years since, of the thousands of people who were there, who were personally involved.

My brother worked for NASA in the 1980s. He’s a mechanical engineer and he spent more time than HE cares to think about going up and down in the “vomit comet”. Among other things, he helped develop the zero-G shower for the space shuttle. So don’t you think HE would have noticed if there hadn’t been any moon landings? Or are you going to say that if he had noticed, and had said something, They would have had him killed? Okay, then, sweetie, you’re getting way past “a simple scientific inquiry into the matter of whether the moon landings were a hoax” and far into the gloomy territory of flat-out, full-bore conspiracy theory. :eek:

[drewbert]

Ok, I was gonna stay out of this, but here’s a bit of evidence I haven’t seen mentioned here before: the Moon rocks have micrometeorite craters on them. You have no micrometeorite craters on Earth rocks because micrometeors burn up long before they reach the ground (instead, you see “shooting stars”). Tiny craters like these would be very hard to fake.

Check out (and yes, I know this is a NASA site, but they also quote non-NASA lunar geologists)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm?list51678

for more info. The relevant part starts about halfway down.

[Cervaise]

So we could all sit here on our computer chairs and go, “There’s this, and this, and this,” but as soon as we get to something that, in your opinion, can’t be explained, you’re going to just ignore all our other logical proofs and go with the conspiracy theory? You’re not going to allow yourself to be convinced, but instead you’re going to bring up some other little nitpicky detail? You’re saying that one thing left unexplained carries more weight than one logical proof?

DDG: This has been my biggest problem during the whole debate, and it’s why I leaped so hard on the Pit pigpile. BickByro, it seems to me, has been committing a major logical fallacy. He’s been finding tiny nitpicks that, to him, raise a smidgen of doubt about some minor aspect of the enterprise, and then leaping to the conclusion that this tiny smidgen of doubt suddenly makes the hoax explanation more likely.

As far as I see it, 99.9% of the proof has been unassailable. BickByro is still fudging around in the remaining 0.1%. That’s fine, if what he’s doing is trying to iron out as much of that remaining tenth of a percent as possible, and if he accepts the veracity of the 99.9%. If he believes, somehow, that the still-unproven elements of the 0.1% actually call the other 99.9% into question, well, I can’t help him there; that’s just plain a lack of critical thinking.

But like I said in the Pit thread, I’ve taken a deep breath and am giving him the benefit of the doubt that all he’s doing is still mucking around in the 0.1%. He has yet to address my Pit request, that we see a recapitulation of hoax-theory objections, along with a delineation of which he believes have been satisfactorily addressed and which are still outstanding. That, for me, will be the clearest demonstration of his motives. Until then, I’m reserving judgment.

[friedo]

Hi folks, look what I found!

It’s a video of the Apollo 15 folks demonstrating the hammer and feather experiment, proving they’re in a vacuum. I can’t watch AVIs on my machine, so you’ll have to let me know how good it is.

Speaking of artificial vacuums, the largest in America is nine by six meters. Certainly not big enough to fake all the moonlanding videos, and I doubt they had vacuum chambers that big in 1969.

[jab1]

That video of the hammer-and-feather experiment was right on the money. I played it and it looks just right. The hammer and feather both fell at the same speed and much more slowly than they would on Earth, even in a vacuum. (I’m 43 years old; I remember watching it live.)

Unfortunately, that vacuum chamber at the University of Michigan is described as having been built in “the early 60s by the Bendix corporation.” It certainly is way too small to have served as a kind of soundstage to simulate a Moon mission, though.

Looking at it, you can see how sturdily-built a vacuum chamber has to be to withstand atmospheric pressure just at sea level. Imagine how strong a larger vacuum chamber would have to be. That nut Kaysing says NASA used vacuum chambers as large as aircraft hangers! I wonder how thick the walls and ceiling would have to be for such a structure…?

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Look guys- he is not going to concede. Hve you ever argued with a “flat-earther”? He simply won’t reply to the posts with unassailable proof, such as the radio broadcasts. And even if we could take a picture of the apollo landing debrsi- he could argue that picture itself was faked- or that an unmanned rocket sent it there. He said the only proff he was willing to accept was “us going back there”- well hell- if we could "fake’ a moon landing in the 1960’s, we sure could fake one now. So he would just say the NEW landing was faked.

Dude- once more than a half-dozen people know- it can’t stay a secret for long. Look at Enigma- super high brit top=top secret, with war-time security so they could shoot you if they wanted too. And something under a hundred folks knew the story. And it leaked- but not the details until after the war. So- thousands of folks from several moon landings keeping that secret? Riiiiight. :rolleyes: And, why more than ONE moon landing, huh?
Look, if you took the dude up there in a supermodern spaceship, and shoved him out the airlock (without a suit, natch) onto the lunar landing site, his last thoughts as his brain exploded would be “FAKE!! All fak…”

So give up. You cannot win. And besides, Purina ended it’s “half-off on purinatrollchow” special today.

[tracer]

Danielinthewolvesden wrote:

Look guys- he is not going to concede. Hve you ever argued with a “flat-earther”?

But the Earth has to be flat! If it were round, we’d fall off unless we were standing at the North Pole!