Can I interject a few points here? When Apollo 13’s oxygen tank exploded, the cloud of gas and debris was very visible to ground based telescopes all over the world. Powerful radars tracked the spacecraft all the way to the moon and back. Hundreds of pounds of lunar samples, were all the geologists fooled? Science experiments left on the surface sent back data for years. Q E D
Icerigger: I’m going to have to check on that Apollo 13 information before I can comment. As for the moon rocks, the conspiracy theory isn’t that far-fetched. I could be completely off-base here, but as I understand it the current, most-accepted theory of the origin of the moon (based on detailed scientific analysis of the rocks brought back by Apollo) is that it was originally part of the earth. They figured this out by looking at moon rocks and finding they were identical to rocks from earth’s earliest times.
(note: I’m going to ditch the SI units here, since I’m more used to the traditional ones and I don’t want to screw up the conversions)
I need to clear up a few things here. First of all, an acute dose is typically defined as a dose that is more or less instantaneous. So 5 rem in 5 minutes is an acute dose; 50 rem over a week is not. That’s why I’m considering the Van Allen dose and the total dose separately–it would be inaccurate to consider them both to be acute doses because the biological effects of a 50 rem dose received in 5 minutes or in a week are very different.
As far as the occupational limits go, you’ll note that 10CFR20 makes no distinction between acute and chronic dose (for DDE; we’re not talking about comitted dose here), because the doses they’re concerned with are below the threshold where it matters. It doesn’t matter whether you get your 5 rem annual dose a little bit each day or all in 10 seconds, because there aren’t going to be any noticeable biological effects either way.
This table is a nice summary. They state the limit as 50 rem (=500mSv), which is twice what I had, but whatever. Note again that this is acute (i.e. instantaneous) dose.
I don’t have a source for that number, but I’ve heard it several times before (I work in the nuclear field, so stuff like this comes up in conversation occasionally) and it seems like a perfectly reasonable estimate on the upper bound. Actually, this table, which is linked from this report shows the skin doses to be less than ~1 rem, and the report states that the dose to blood-forming organs (which are the first organs to show biological effects from low doses) are 40% lower. And:
However I guess it’s distasteful to cite NASA in a conspiracy debate :rolleyes:
Anyway, I think it should be clear that neither the Van Allen dose nor the total dose posed any immediate health risks to the astronauts.
Bobort: Wow! Now that’ll keep me busy for a while. I haven’t had a chance to go over all the data yet, but a cursory examination of the 10 CFR’s definitions page made me a bit curious; they define “high radiation area” as an area in which “radiation levels from radiation sources external to the body could result in an individual receiving a dose equivalent in excess of 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in 1 hour.”
If 1 mSv in 1 hour is considered “high radiation,” what’s 50 mSv in 5 minutes (repeated within a few weeks)? At the very least, this should dispel the notion that the astronauts were exposed to “trivial” amounts of radiation… whether the total amount would have made them sick, I don’t know for sure yet. But thank you very much for all the links; I hope I can understand all of them!
]quote]… Finally, your point on shadows shows you haven’t been paying much attention to this debate. YES, on a clear moonlit night, the moon casts shadows. The question is whether the moon casts shadows on a clear sunlit DAY.
[/quote]
Do you really, at all, understand the difference between being on the Earth and being on the moon? Even remotely? Can you construct a mental model of how differently things would appear?
And you’ve been on the moon how many times, exactly?
FOr someone who just heard about this :rolleyes: when the Fox show aired, you’re certainly stubbornly determined to prove that is was a hoax, aintcha? Let’s see, either we really landed on the moon, or thousands of people have been involved for 32 years in a massive conspiracy to fake it. OK . . .
I thought about this one too for some time (though I liked the “faked photographs” better).
Consider that, at our distance from the sun, all light rays are parallel.
Consider, as well, that the surface of the moon is a highly irregular dust ball, whose dust has some general reflective qualities (ie-it can be seen when light hits it. Remember too that it isn’t a color, so the light it does reflect is white light).
Thus, when a large group of light rays (or photons, or whatever) strike this irregular surface, they will be angled in some way. If straight down is considered 0 degrees, then they will be reflected at some angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 (considering the 2-D version). Thus, light reflected of the surface of the moon travels in all directions above the tangent to the ideal spherical surface, and anything on the moon, whether in a shoadow or not, will be illuminated to some degree. The more reflective this thing is (either mirrored or white), the brighter it will appear.
What do you think?
pldennison: Perhaps you’re implying that I was “into” this topic previous to the FOX special? Sorry. I had of course read Cecil’s original column on the subject, but it seemed to me that the newer arguments were a lot more persuasive than “the LEM would have sunk into the dust.” Obviously others disagree, but others have also had an exceptionally difficult time proving something that is purportedly within the grasp of any half-educated rube. I need only point to the obvious difference of scientific opinion between Sam Stone and RickJay re: atmosphereic dispersion of light.
I really don’t have more than a few days experience with this topic, which is why it sometimes takes me a while to process the new data and propose a counter-explanation. The fact that I’ve managed to stay afloat thus far is, to me at least, proof that proving the moon landing is no elementary exercise, so at the VERY least, you people ought to be a bit nicer to those “idiot” conspiracy theorists out there who might not be aware of all the nuances of interplanetary travel, light reflection, etc.
In answer to your question, yes, I understand the difference between being on the earth and the moon. Do you? You certainly didn’t demonstrate that my quote had any misconceptions in it. Does the moon cast shadows on the earth when the sun is up? No; the sun is too bright. Does the earth cast shadows on the moon when the sun is up? No; the sun is too bright. Give me some evidence to the contrary if you think I’m so wrong.
And tell me, please, how many times have YOU been to the moon?
And again, either we really landed on the moon or maybe a couple hundred people have been involved for 32 years in a massive conspiracy. I don’t know where you’re getting this “thousands” number from.
Anyhow, it’s time to go back to Bobort’s intimidating post. I had to think about this one quite a bit, and naturally I may be wrong, but here goes…
You make some good points, Bobort, particularly about what makes an acute dose acute. It seems there are two factors: an acute dose must be high-level (or 10CFR20 would distinguish for low-level acute doses) and it must occur within some nebulous-but-let’s-say-short amount of time. Obviously the logic of “it doesn’t matter whether you get your annual dose all at once or 1/365 at a time” only goes so far, otherwise there would be no such thing as an “acute dose” at all. So, I hate to be a COMPLETE contrarian here, but it still seems to me that the moon mission would have been closer to all-at-once than to 1/365-at-a-time.
Regardless, of course, the charts you provide for the symptoms caused by acute radiation poisoning make it clear that if our hypothetical estimate of 500 mSv total exposure is accurate, the astronauts would have had an increased risk of cancer and that’s about it.
The question, of course, is whether 500 mSv is an accurate estimate. Let’s start with the most outlandishly conspiratorial point first: is it merely a coincidence that the figure you “heard several times before” for the astronaut’s total exposure to radiation is precisely the same number as the lower limit for detectable biological effects? Pretty amazing, that.
But I know what you’re thinking, that doesn’t prove anything. No, it doesn’t. So on to the next point: you’re obviously a very intelligent person, Bobort, and I don’t doubt your coworkers are either. But seriously, just because you work “in the nuclear field” doesn’t mean you have clue one about how much radiation is present in space, the Van Allen belts, etc. The number seems to be pure hearsay. So we’re evenly matched here at not proving anything, I’d say.
Now for the big question: does the NASA report you linked to prove anyhting?
Let me say up front that there’s nothing inherently distasteful about citing NASA in this conspiracy debate, as far as I’m concerned; up until a few days ago, I had pretty much accepted everything NASA says at face value. I still don’t like the thought they could be lying. So I will attempt to discredit the report not because of who wrote it, but rather because of what was written.
The report, which I hope everyone checked out, purports to be a comprehensive examination of the medical effects of the Apollo mission—it is entitled “Biomedical Results of Apollo, Section II, Chapter 3: Radiation Protection and Instrumentation,” which certainly gives the impression that it is an exerpt taken from a long and thorough “official” report. I assume I don’t have any objections yet?
So here we should have a specific, detailed report of exactly how much radiation the astronauts were exposed to and when, correct? Yet any careful reader will note that the author (1) never tells us exactly how much radiation is in the Van Allen belts (2) never tells us how long the astronauts were within the belts and (3) never tells us how NASA overcame the “complex” problem of how to “traverse the belts rapidly on the way to outer space.”
In other words, NASA provides absolutely ZERO information is given about the astronauts’ exposure to the Van Allen belts, either in duration or intensity. NOTHING. The author simply introduces the concept of the Van Allen belts, says they are dangerous and presented a challenge to the moon mission, then leaves it at that. Can you blame me for being just a bit skeptical?
Having done nothing to alleviate one of my concerns, the author moves on to solar-particle radiation. “No major solar-particle events occurred during an Apollo mission,” he writes, as though this means that the sun had gone on a vacation from producing radiation.
First off, I’ve read on a few conspiracy sites that in fact quite a bit of solar activity was taking place during the missions; unfortunately, that’s a their-word-against-ours point for the time being.
More importantly, the official explanation seems to leave out some fairly general concerns about solar particle radiation. Even without a giant solar flare, radiation is constantly emitted from the sun—it’s a freaking H-bomb in space! But we don’t need to worry about that, right?
I’ve heard it said many times that even one really bad sunburn (ie prolonged exposure to the sun’s constantly-emitted UV rays) can provide the foundation for a future skin cancer—yet these astronauts were out there with essentially zero UV protection, not even that afforded by the earth’s atmosphere. How were they not sunburned throught their suits? The report says the command module was “heavily shielded”—with what? Let’s see some evidence there.
To conclude this point, just because there were no MAJOR solar events doesn’t mean there wasn’t any solar radiation, but the NASA report decides this fact is of no consequence and instead moves on to the next point. This report is looking less and less comprehensive all of a sudden, don’t you thnk?
Then we move on to cosmic rays, which the author admits are a fairly unknown quantity. But we haven’t seen the Apollo astronauts come down with anything, so we’ll assume they’re safe. Sounds dubious, but fine, let’s move on.
Next up we have the danger from “neutrons created by cosmic rays in collision with lunar materials.” This, according to the report, was an initial concern, but they sent the astronauts up there anyway (!) and, wouldn’t you know it, the “neutron doses were significantly lower than had been anticipated.” How convenient! One wonders where, exactly, the NASA number-crunchers had gone wrong, and why the decision was made to send people up there even though NASA itself thought there was a “potential hazard” in doing so. It could have turned out to be quite an embarrassment. Of course, the report provides answers to neither of these questions. Why should it? Everyone KNOWS we landed on the moon, after all!
Apart from all this non-explanation, I found the following comment purely hilarious: “Crewmen could use the RSM, a direct-reading dose-rate instrument, to find a habitable low-dose region within the spacecraft in the event of a radiation emergency.” Gosh, with all the room inside those capsules I’m SURE all the crew members could have found some “low-dose region” to squeeze into “in the event of a radiation emergency.” I can see it now; “Hey Neil, could you move like three inches to the right? I think we’ll be safe there.” Uh-huh.
So with that, the report is essentially over. When we reach the “Summary and Conclusions,” we read:
“Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions.”
That’s it. Nothing about the Van Allen belts, non-event-related solar radiation, cosmic rays or neutrons. We have been given absolutely no information about any of those factors. The reason the astronauts were safe is due SOLELY, as this report states it, to the lack of major solar activity during the missions.
Am I also right in reading that this basically says we lucked out; if there had been major solar activity, we’d have been screwed? Now we have TWO clearly potentially hazardous sources of radiation that NASA allegedly felt comfortable sending the astronauts into.
So there you have it. I don’t think any of my criticisms of the report depend on the “NASA MUST be lying” line of reasoning. Let’s face it, folks: if the conspiracy theorists turned out a “report” with so many glaring omissions and sweepings under the rug, you’d rip it to pieces. Neither should NASA’s unsubstantiated assertions be accepted simply on faith.
aynrandlover:
That all depends on whether Sam Stone or RickJay is correct about atmospheric dispersion being the thing that bends light behind shadowed areas (and still, as far as I can tell, only one of them can be). Until we settle that one definitively, I can’t tell you whether your model works or not.
I would submit, however, that shadows on the moon are visible even from earth, and I don’t think just putting something shiny in the shadow would cause said object to brighten up enough to appear ILLUMINATED from earth (taking into account it would have to be a BIG shiny thing under a BIG shadow in order to be viewed from earth, of course). But that’s just how it seems to me.
The atmosphere, in this case, is irrelevant. The reason the shadow isn’t illuminated is because the light can’t reflect through solid objects to illuminate the shadow. they are illuminating stuff “above” the shadow.
The earth is also somewhat irrelevant. The earth is the cause of multiple light sources. We are now discussing how light gets into a “shadow” area. The pictures I saw weren’t illuminated to the extent that it was just as bright as the non-shadow area. It seemed to be noticibly dimmer to me.
Yes, you can. Pick up any high school physics text book. Turn to the chapter on light. When light hits an uneven surface like the moon (or my floor, or almost anything) it scatters; its rays are reflected in as many different angles as there are on said surface (i.e. millions and millions). The presence of an atmosphere may or may not contribute greatly to the dispersion of light, but light disperses. On the moon, I see no reason to believe that there would be insufficient light cast into shadows to see anything.
No, it’s proof that proving anything is no elementary exercise. Prove that I had a Roast Beef sub last night. Prove that Bill Clinton was actually the President for 8 years and not just some actor. I could punch holes in either theory, particularly if I relied in those who partake of pseudo-science for my information.
This all depends what you mean by faith. First, if you think all of NASA’s in depth scientific studies can be found on line, I’m sure you’re wrong. Call NASA. Go to a library (a big one). I’m sure you’ll find a detailed study of the expected radiation levels and solar activity for the region and time frame.
Of course, we lay-folk probably wouldn’t understand it, it being a scientific study. Hell, I don’t even understand my roommate’s calculus text books. At a certain point, what one comes to accept, however, is that these reports are studied by the scientific and academic community ad nauseum . . . and the only people who raise objections are those with little to no scientific background. We’ve got dozens of eye-witnesses to our being on the moon and hours and hours of photographic evidence. Thousands upon thousands of people verified the moon landings when they were taking place, and thousands upon thousands have since verified the evidence. I’m not a geologist, but the people who examine the moon rocks are; if they all say that the rocks must have been formed on the moon, I’m willing to assume that they did not overlook some obvious possibility that NASA made them. How many world class physicists do you see complaining about the fill lighting on the moon?
Of course I can’t verify that the moon landings took place; with my lack of scientific knowledge, it’d be pretty easy to put one over on me. I’m willing to take the word, however, of the thousands of people who can and have. (It also doesn’t help that I am able to punch holes in most of the conspiracy theorists’ objections.)
I admit that I simply do not understand what you’re talking about now.
The reason that things in shadow on the Moon are still visible is that light bounces off the surface of the Moon. It has nothing to do with “bending light.” I suppose they could also be illuminated by earthshine, but the simple fact is that a lot of light reflects off the surface of the Moon. I can prove that a lot of light is reflected off the Moon because you can SEE IT FROM HERE. You can talk all you want about how you don’t think rock and dust reflects much light, but it sure looks bright to me when I look at it from here, and that’s through smog and water vapor and 250,000 miles of space.
Let me try to restate my example; if I go outside on a moonlit night, with no other source of light, I can see things because of the light reflected from the Moon. That’s 250,000 miles away. Even that far away, the light that reflects offt he rocky, dusty surface of the Moon illuminates shadows right here on Earth.
If I am standing on the surface of the moon, looking at something sitting in shadow behind my LEM, then that object is in exactly the same situation - standing in darkness with no other light source except light reflecting from the Moon. Forget “Atmospheric scattering” - that is irrelevant on the Moon. Shouldn’t the reflected light help me see there, too? In fact, shouldn’t it be brighter, since I’m a lot closer to the light source? There HAS to be a substantial amount of light bouncing off the Moon; you can see the Moon from hundreds of thousands of miles away. Millions, actually.
If I can read a newspaper by light reflected off the Moon from 250,000 miles away, I would think that a U.S. flag three feet from that light source could be seen by someone standing twenty feet away, wouldn’t you?
There are, of course, other light sources on the Moon as well; the Earth, the stars (though I don’t think stars provide much light at all) and reflection off the astronauts and their equipment. But, frankly, just the surface is enough. If the moon provides enough reflected light to allow me to read at night, I don’t understand why it’s hard to comprehend that it will provide me with even more reflected light when I’m standing 250,000 miles closer to it.
I’m becoming a little concerned when you say things like this:
Ummmm… they did have UV protection. It’s called a “spaceship.” When they were outside the spaceship, they wore “Space suits.” You don’t think UV goes right through metal and plastic and fabric and such, do you? If it did, you’d get sunburns while sitting in your living room.
You want UV shielding? Sit inside an Apollo capsule. Yu’re surrounded by materials that are completely opaque to UV, which, like light, does not go through things like steel, or aluminum, or gold, or cotton for that matter. There you go. Problem solved. As has been explained many, many times, the radiation that presented a danger was alpha radiation. And yes, they look some doses of radiation. That was the risk they took. In no way does this make the moon landings impossible. How would it? Even if they were taking dangerous levels of radiation and NASA’s fudging that fact and Jim Swigert’s cancer was caused by alpha particles in the Van Allen belt, just how would any of that make the Apollo missions a hoax?
As to the NASA report being full of incompleted thoughts, so what? Keegan’s “The Second World War” leaveas a lot out, too; that doesn’t provide evidence the Second World War didn’t happen.
There are no inconsistencies in the photographs; they are exactly what should be expected. There are no inconsistencies in the movies taken on the Moon. There are no inconsistencies in what people heard and saw. There is physical evidence humans have been there. The real-time evidence could not have been faked. THOUSANDS, if not tens of thousands of people, would have had to be complicit in a conspiracy to hoax all this, and there’s no chance in hell of such a thing being kept a secret. The fact that humans went to the moon is as unquestionable a fact as the fact that the Second World War took place. You can “hold your own” arguing anything if you’re unwilling to accept rather obvious evidence and just keep shifting your objections.
RickJay, whether you intended it or not, your post was both informative and hilarious.
Originally posted by BickByro:
“Does the moon cast shadows on the earth when the sun is up? No; the sun is too bright. Does the earth cast shadows on the moon when the sun is up? No; the sun is too bright. Give me some evidence to the contrary if you think I’m so wrong.”
The moon does in fact cast shadows on the earth when the sun is up. It is commonly referred to as a solar eclipse. In my experience, multiple shadows (2) can be generated during a partial solar eclipse.
Am I really the only one who sees how RickJay and Sam Stone were using opposing arguments to prove the same point?
Sam Stone said: “…dispersion in an atmosphere causes ‘fill’ lighting that casts enough light into shadows that you can’t see them. Not so on the moon.”
Whereas RickJay, VarlosZ and Aynrandlover argue that yes, fill lighting IS cast into shadows on the moon—not by atmosphere but by the very ground itself. What is it I’m missing here? Surely one of these explanations is inaccurate.
But let’s look at the “ground reflection” argument for a minute. First off all, I’m getting really sick of the “you can see the moon from space so it must be really reflective” line—we all agree that earth is even MORE reflective, MORE visible from space, but we live here (in an atmosphere, of course) and I’ve never noticed light reflecting off the ground enough to actually ILLUMINATE objects in shadows. Yes, objects are technically visible (in the sense of not being completely BLACK) when they are in shadow on earth. But if you’ve ever taken a photograph in which an object showed up completely in shadow, you’ve proven that there simply is not enough light being reflected here on earth (where we have not just a reflective ground surface but a light-dispersing atmosphere to boot) to cause objects photographed while in deep shadow to show up illuminated in the final photographs.
Check out the ultra-shiny feet of the LEM; they are essentially at the same elevation as the lunar ground, yet they show up as bright as anything else in the photo (ie the top of the LEM). If Aynrandlover’s theory were accurate, objects placed low to the ground in shadows would not appear as bright as objects placed high above the ground but in shadows—but this is not what we see. The brightened objects in the photos have a uniform luminosity, not at all what you would expect if the reflected beams of light were, as Aynrandlover said, “illuminating stuff ‘above’ the shadow.”
VarlosZ: I really don’t have high school physics text books sitting around the house. But I’ve done a little diagram here of parallel rays and it still doesn’t make sense to me. Try this one: draw a picture of a cylindrical hole dug in the ground, as viewed from the side. Now draw a sun on the top right of the page, such that the sun’s rays impact the top left side of the hole (traveling in parallel lines, of course) but terminate about halfway down the hole.
Now tell me: would an oberver peering in be able to see the bottom of the hole illuminated? The rays of the sun are not directly hitting the bottom of the hole, remember. So is enough light reflected off the wall of the hole back down to the bottom of the hole so as to make the bottom of the hole appear illuminated? I maintain (and I think this could be easily tested) that the bottom of the hole will remain dark, despite the effects of reflection you describe.
Don’t like that example? Draw the reverse—a monolith standing on the moon, viewed from the side, with the sun up and to the right of it so that a nice triangle of shadow is cast on the ground. Now observe the rays of sunlight that are smacking into the “bright side” of the monolith. If the rays scatter as you describe, wouldn’t we expect to find a “bright spot” on the ground to the non-shadowed side of the monolith? This would be the spot where light that hit the bright side of the monolith would reflect back to the ground below, substantially brightening the area opposite the shadow so as to create an “anti-shadow.” Draw it out if you don’t see what I mean. And if I’m wrong, please explain to me why.
As for comparing this debate to me trying to conclusively demonstrate whether you ate a roast beef sub last night, I hardly see the comparison. I’ve never relied on the type of conspiratorial argument that presumes the conspiracy already has been proven true, that I’m aware of—and if I have, I apologize for it, I’ve honestly been shooting for legitimate intellectual investigation here. To the extent that I’ve “stumped” anybody here, I honestly believe it was because I posed a question that could not be answered without relying on the equally weak “it must be true because otherwise somebody would have had to have lied about it” argument.
And don’t tell me I’ve “relied in those who partake of pseudo-science for my information”—When? I’ve relied on the scientific testimony of my fellow Dopers for the overwhelming majority of this discussion. If that’s pseudo-science, well, it’s the fault of the Teeming Millions, not mine.
I’m willing to concede that more information MAY be available on the specific measurements/calculations performed by NASA. My point was simply that the report presented to me by Bobort was not in any way the kind of document that could be considered “evidence” of a moon landing, and that this fact had nothing to do with whether one believes in a conspiracy or not. The report was simply non-evidence, one way or t’other. Bobort presented it to me as though it were something more.
One thing I’m sure I WON’T find in any library are your purported “expected radiation levels and solar activity for the region and time frame,” considering that solar eruptions were and are completely unpredictable by mankind.
As for your contention that:
“At a certain point, what one comes to accept, however, is that these reports are studied by the scientific and academic community ad nauseum . . . and the only people who raise objections are those with little to no scientific background…”
Jesus, man, ever heard of Copernicus? Darwin? Einstein? Anyone who’s ever contributed to science by NOT accepting on blind faith the notion that science is a perfect system of checks and balances? This is hardly worth debating.
Then you say “we’ve got dozens of eye-witnesses to our being on the moon.” Who, aliens?
I’ll let you in on a little secret: if no legitimate scientist thinks that NASA faked the moon landings, then no legitimate scientist is going to bother to “verify” the evidence presented by NASA–and any scientist who for some reason DOES, and produces any evidence at all against NASA, is going to be discredited by fucking EVERYBODY.
And let me again point out that geologists who have studied moon rocks have almost universally come to the conclusion that the moon used to be a part of the earth. Because the rocks are identical in composition to extremely old rocks found on earth. Go figure. These people are begging NASA to loan them moon rocks—what are they gonna do, turn around and say “hey, NASA, these look like earth rocks”? No, they’re not even going to think of that; they’re going to develop a theory that the moon used to be part of the earth. This is not a big stretch.
Moving on to RickJay…
I’m still hoping you’ll see the point of contention implied between you and Sam Stone…
And no matter how many times you restate your example, one simple fact remains. If you go outside on a moonlit night, you’ve already missed the point of this conversation because we are discussing optical effects that occur IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT. There is no sunlight on a moonlit night.
For as bright as you seem to think the light reflecting off the surface of the moon would be, take my word for it that the sun shining that light down in the first place is a WHOLE LOT brighter. Can the reflected light off the surface of the moon compete with the “relative darkness” of a shadow cast by an unrelenting sun? I still say no.
As for the UV thing, fine, whatever, some OTHER kind of solar radiation. Clearly the sun produces rays that are dangerous to astronauts, otherwise NASA wouldn’t be concerned about solar flares, as the report indicates they were. These rays are not ONLY produced by major solar events, either–they are in constant production. I said UV when I should have said alpha, but the point is that in the absence of earth’s radiation-consuming atmosphere, the protection afforded by a few feet of metal ain’t gonna cut it. A mere spacesuit is cetainly not.
Back to my UV statement, though, tell me: at the levels of UV implied by direct exposure to sunlight, couldn’t enough get through at least the SPACESUIT to cause sunburn? Maybe not, just curious.
When you start spouting such definitive proclamations as “there are no inconsistencies in the photographs… there are no inconsistencies in the movies… there are no inconsistencies in what people heard and saw,” you sound just a little TOO sure of yourself. Did you WATCH the Fox special? Did you SEE the part where they superimposed two pieces of footage allegedly filmed miles apart and the backgrounds were EXACTLY the same, down to every little rock? Or have you examined the still photographs in which the same phenomenon occurs? Can you concretely explain to me why there is no blast crater, even the tiniest one, underneath the LEM? There are most certainly inconsistencies–at the very least seeming ones–in the record; you’ve just decided not to see them at all.
Finally, as for your suggestion that I am “unwilling to accept rather obvious evidence and just keep shifting your objections,” I submit that not a single piece of evidence presented against me has been “rather obvious,” nor have I shifted my objections—at many points I could have moved on to another topic, but in the interest of thoroughness I have attempted to stay focused on the illumination question. I believe my opinions/objections on that issue to have been fairly constant.
Let’s keep it above the belt, here, folks.
I don’t think that’s what Bick was getting at, Hibbins. The moon will cast its own shadow on the Earth during an eclipse, but the question seems to be whether moonlight is strong enough so that an object on the Earth (say, a flagpole) will cast two shadows if the sun is also shining on the object. In my experience, it does not, but I don’t believe that proves that objects shaded from sunlight on the moon would be unilluminated and invisible.
Also, the moon does not provide a second light source during a partial eclipse (or not enough of one to be noticed). Two reasons for this. First, during a solar eclipse, the sun and moon are at the same point in the sky, so any light cast from the moon (or, strictly speaking, reflected) would come from the same direction as the sun. Secondly, during a solar eclipse, the moon is between the sun and Earth. Since the side of the moon which faces the sun is illuminated, the side facing the Earth would not receive any light and therefore not reflect any toward the Earth. This was discussed earlier when considering why a new moon reflects so little light toward the Earth and there was some confusion on whether it happens this way only at high noon. It can happen any time of the day, but whatever time, a new moon viewed from Earth will be in roughly the same direction as the sun.
Alright, never mind. I take back (B) above; I’m through hitting my head against this particular brick wall.
So long, guys.
Robot Arm: Thanks for the help there! Actually, we had never determined for sure (at least I hadn’t) whether a new moon only occurs at high noon. You say it doesn’t, so my question is this: at every other stage along the moon’s cycle, no matter how small the illuminated sliver, the moon still rises into the sky at night, right? So how come it doesn’t do so during a new moon? And if it does, how come it isn’t illuminated by earthshine? And if it isn’t, that pretty much blows the earthshine argument out of the water, doesn’t it?
And here’s a sidenote question for anybody that knows the answer: how did the astronauts eat/drink/excrete on the moon? Tubes connected to all relevant orifices? 'Cause unless the LEM remained pressurized/oxygenated (which I’m almost positive it did not), they sure couldn’t have taken their helmets off for the eating and drinking part.
A NASA press release from 1977 (and reissued last week), written in response to the book We Never Went to the Moon, covers this.
The rest of the release is available here in .pdf format.
I just went to Google and typed, “Apollo Radiation Exposure”. Here’s some interesting links that came up:
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
http://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/edresource/unit_2_toc/23.pdf
(2/3 of the way through the document is a table showing the exposure of every Apollo flight)
http://srag-nt.jsc.nasa.gov/FAQ/Protect.htm
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/project/apollo.htm
Read and enjoy.
This has some interesting links to both sides of the argument.