Hyperspeed wrote:
I'm not disputing we have placed things into orbit or sent probes around the solar system. I'm not disputing Hubble (even though the images are touched up with those colours) and maybe I am mixing anti-war with anti-science.
Yes, you are.
However there are a number of scientists that have made it vocal that the radiation levels on the moon would be too high, as would venturing too far from near Earth orbit. They say that for a week long journey back in '69 it would have killed the astronauts and THAT is why Russia never made it. What happened to Laika, and that monkey?
*Sigh*. I know Tigger is making an effort, and I know I'm going to make one---simple, polite---but somehow, I know this is not going to be pretty.
I'll begin at the end. Laika and the monkeys suffocated because the oxygen in their capsules ran out. They were, as the saying goes, 'expendable'. Back in the early days of rocketry, it must have been hard to carry up a heavy payload. If you put a satellite into orbit for study, and have to make every gram of it count, you are not going to spend a lot weight on oxygen canisters.
Then the radiation story. If you run into those things, the first thing you need to do is
check the facts. And I'm going to. Therefore, could you please tell me
who made those statements, on the basis of
which data, and
where did they publish them? You see, back in the 60's there weren't any satellites in orbit monitoring the radiation flux of the Sun, much like we do today. So, apart from looking at the Sun with helioscopes, and sending up balloons into the upper atmosphere, there really was no way to say with the certainty those anonymous 'scientists' display that the radiation levels on the journeys were 'too high'.
Of course, there was the genuine concern for the passage through the Van Allen belts which girdle the Earth. There, particle energies are much higher because of the interaction with Earth's magnetic field. Since a lot of satellites operate in that area, insurance companies want to know all about radiation levels. Measurements in the capsules, and later measurements of the fluxes themselves coupled with simple orbital mechanics provide a consistent picture: the astronauts got an effective dose of approximately 20 mSv, plus whatever they got from the rest of the journey, which would have been substantially lower. (See
this link and
here for the official article on the matter.) That's high when compared to normal people (law states a maximum of about 1 mSv/year for normal people living at sea level, but 20 mSv/year for radiological workers), but short-term adverse affects would not occur until they got slightly over 1 Sv. Long-term is a different matter: you have an increased risk of cancer. But then again, noone is saying that being an astronaut is a healthy profession.
Of course, that doesn't mean they
can't be 'too high'. Unprotected, wearing just a space suit, an astronaut would quickly die when in the middle of a strong solar flare. Fortunately, thanks to light speed being as high as it is, we always have several hours early warning to put as much mass between him and the Sun as possible. It's crude, but it works. As a matter of fact, astronauts were trained for such occasions: hide under the lander, under rocky overhangs, whatever it takes to
get out of the Sun. Fortunately, the occasion never arose.
Finally, because I like radiation physics, I will tell you all about Mars: it is estimated that the radiation levels for astronauts going to that forsaken rock are bordering on the allowed maxima. They would be exposed to so much radiation (mostly from cosmic rays, not from the Sun) that once they get home, they would never be allowed to go back into space. It is literally the trip of a lifetime. Personally, I think people are more valuable than to be used up in single pointless trips just to prove to the rest of the world that Bush has (and most definitely is) the Biggest Dick of us all.
I've never been into conspiracy theories but I've read somewhere that the only solution to this problem of man(/woman) exploring deeper space is to somehow constantly regenerate the nerve tissue that is damaged by over-exposure to radiation (remember how instant this was in that film about Los Alamos?).
That's quite a lot of SF there, mate. The entire body is degenerating due to exposure. Think of it as posters yellowing in the Sun, but then a little more quickly. Regenerating nerve tissue is the least of your worries: your reproductive organs will be calling it quits first, then the bone marrow. On a trip to the Moon, radiation levels are too low to worry about tissue regeneration, unless you plan on staying there for months. Then you would definitely need additional protection.
Interesting then that over the last few years medical science has 'put all it's eggs in one basket' with regards to embryonic stem cell research; cells that can be told to grow into anything you want them to - including damaged nerves.
Quite.
If man did land on the moon then I'm sure we've been given a much glossier image of it than we should have. Such a feat would have incurred much higher casualties and would have taken a lot more time and money than a single economy could have coped with. And probably adding to the rose-tinted view of the landings is the fact we never went back... but now Bush has spent all his pocket money.
On the basis of what do you conclude that much higher casualties are to be expected? The most dangerous parts of the entire procedure are take-off and reentry to Earth, because of the insane amount of combustible fuel strapped to your backside, and the insanely high temperatures of the spacecraft, respectively. Once you're in space, there really isn't much to harm you, save the occasional meteorite or solar flare. And in fact, things
did go wrong a number of times: Apollo 1 proved to be the fiery coffin of three qualified astronauts; Apollo 13 almost, when an explosion knocked out much of the main controls.
Why would it have taken more money than a single economy could cope with? Where are your calculations to show that it is impossible? You are handwaving here, making up reasons instead of
checking the facts. And why we never went back? Well, what for? What would we need to do on the Moon, save for conducting astronomical observations, mining the valuable He-3 isotope and building hotels so that people can enjoy the experience of low-g sex? You are completely correct that journeys to the Moon did not come cheap, and nowadays people will want to see a healthy ROI before committing cash. That is why we never went back. The business case is rotten to the core.
Anyway, I'm sceptical and not totally against the moon landings - but like the holocaust, which many are now questioning, information is kept far too secret, things are glossed over, spin and lies blur reality. Even truth can become tarnished.
Being skeptical is okay. But trusting anonymous rumours over hard facts, when they are there, ready for you to check yourself, is inexcusable. (That too goes for your questioning the holocaust---why on Earth would you 'question' it? What's next? Questioning evolution? Questioning that HIV causes AIDS?)
