Mirror on the Moon

[Pluto]

Hmm, okay. So you say science can provide part truth as shown in the fact of the moon landings? My idea of science is that it's a better way than religion to talk of the world, but then is itself a religion of sorts. But we still have no evidence that we went, do we?

[Ginkgo]

Hmm, okay. So you say science can provide part truth as shown in the fact of the moon landings? My idea of science is that it's a better way than religion to talk of the world, but then is itself a religion of sorts. But we still have no evidence that we went, do we?

Religion is a good way of looking at the world. Science is also a good way of looking at the world. Religion is a belief system because it cannot be accommodate within the scientific method. In short, we cannot demonstrate the existence of God by way of observation. Science is different to a belief system in this respect.

It is not a belief that we can prove things by way of observation- we actually can. Is it possible man didn't land on the Moon? Of course it is possible. However, in true scientific fashion, we weight up all the evidence. It is only then we find it highly likely man did land on the moon. The more corroborating evidence the greater the likelihood.

[Pluto]

So our evidence that we did land on the moon is due to science, though science, through observation of reality, is better than religion at this, it isn't water tight. I never really doubted that we did not go until I saw, or observed the reactions of astronauts who, say they have gone, were interviewed and then confronted with the interviewers belief as fact that they didn't. Their reaction was such that it made me think they had not gone. Presently I forget the name of the documentary. Though one of the interviewers weapons to say they didn't was the existence of the Van Allen radiation belt. The idea that it is not possible to go through this and survive, yet the astronauts must have if they went to the moon.

It's just fascinating how proving something like landing on the moon, for and against, is not as easy at it might seem.

[thedoc]

The Van Allen belt turned out to be not as much of a concern as some would have you believe, not lethal at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

From the article,

"Implications for space travel[edit]
Missions beyond low Earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four Earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[25][26]

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.[27] A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[28]

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[29]"

[thedoc]

So our evidence that we did land on the moon is due to science, though science, through observation of reality, is better than religion at this, it isn't water tight. I never really doubted that we did not go until I saw, or observed the reactions of astronauts who, say they have gone, were interviewed and then confronted with the interviewers belief as fact that they didn't. Their reaction was such that it made me think they had not gone. Presently I forget the name of the documentary. Though one of the interviewers weapons to say they didn't was the existence of the Van Allen radiation belt. The idea that it is not possible to go through this and survive, yet the astronauts must have if they went to the moon.

It's just fascinating how proving something like landing on the moon, for and against, is not as easy at it might seem.

The astronauts were probably incredulous that the interviewer would even mention something that didn't really amount to anything, and was demonstrably un-true to anyone paying even the slightest attention.

Did the astronauts face-palm at that comment, if not they should have.

[Impenitent]

Van Allen's pants on the other hand...

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

It's just fascinating how proving something like landing on the moon, for and against, is not as easy at it might seem.

Reasonably easy, as you say get a laser and bounce it off the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k

[thedoc]

Van Allen's pants on the other hand...

-Imp

Odd, I don't wear my pants on my hand?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

It's just fascinating how proving something like landing on the moon, for and against, is not as easy at it might seem.

Reasonably easy, as you say get a laser and bounce it off the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k

I say bullshit. In the show they said it takes 2.5 seconds for the laser to reflect back. But if standing on the earth, it would take 2.5688172043010752688172043010753 seconds.

So, they must have been on a shuttle. And if they were on a shuttle, they must have had ridiculously expensive equipment to target a small little mirror from thousands of miles away. They would also have to calculate the trajectory in retrograde too as well as compensate for the orbital velocity, how would they even catch the return laser when it arrived? Corner mirrors return a parallel trajectory, and the accuracy to form such a feat would have to be infinintessemaly precise. How would a parallel trajectory return a catchable laser from an asynchronous orbit? How could a bunch of scrubby college dweebs afford these gizmos anyhow? They got a free shuttle ride courtesy of spacecamp? And if the equipment was so precise, why dumb it down by saying "2.5" seconds? Why not show the full beauty of the gizmo at hand? Why not tell the world all 32 decimal points?

[thedoc]

I say bullshit. In the show they said it takes 2.5 seconds for the laser to reflect back. But if standing on the earth, it would take 2.5688172043010752688172043010753 seconds.

So, they must have been on a shuttle. And if they were on a shuttle, they must have had ridiculously expensive equipment to target a small little mirror from thousands of miles away. They would also have to calculate the trajectory in retrograde too as well as compensate for the orbital velocity, how would they even catch the return laser when it arrived? Corner mirrors return a parallel trajectory, and the accuracy to form such a feat would have to be infinintessemaly precise. How would a parallel trajectory return a catchable laser from an asynchronous orbit? How could a bunch of scrubby college dweebs afford these gizmos anyhow? They got a free shuttle ride courtesy of spacecamp?

Amazing, when someone can't understand something it suddenly becomes impossible to do.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

I say bullshit. In the show they said it takes 2.5 seconds for the laser to reflect back. But if standing on the earth, it would take 2.5688172043010752688172043010753 seconds.

So, they must have been on a shuttle. And if they were on a shuttle, they must have had ridiculously expensive equipment to target a small little mirror from thousands of miles away. They would also have to calculate the trajectory in retrograde too as well as compensate for the orbital velocity, how would they even catch the return laser when it arrived? Corner mirrors return a parallel trajectory, and the accuracy to form such a feat would have to be infinintessemaly precise. How would a parallel trajectory return a catchable laser from an asynchronous orbit? How could a bunch of scrubby college dweebs afford these gizmos anyhow? They got a free shuttle ride courtesy of spacecamp?

Amazing, when someone can't understand something it suddenly becomes impossible to do.

Didn't say it was impossible. Said it would be ridiculously expensive and infinitessemely precise. To much for a bunch of scrubby college kids that's for sure, unless NASA felt like throwing them a free ride.

FYI, laser ranging is done from earth, not shuttles, so what I said still stands. It would take more than 2.5 seconds it would take 2.568 seconds for it to return. Rounded, the computer would display 2.6 seconds. And if the computer displayed 2.568 seconds why would he say 2.5 seconds and deny the glory of the computer's rightful decimal places?

Therefore, bullshit.

[Pluto]

Reasonably easy, as you say get a laser and bounce it off the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e5CtbbZL-k

But this is exactly what I said before about the theatrics of showing how it's done. This is a dumb-ass show and episode designed to extinguish to a young pop audience any ideas they might have entertained as to how it could be done. The show is politically motivated, it is a good example of entertainment as political or cultural propaganda. TV programs carry in their make-up force-multiplyers of that nations ideology and would cover going over any grey areas that may arise in people's minds to the big stories. We can see it today with 24 or the film about the killing of Osama. Or maybe they rather innocently are conveying the technology which has been put forth by NASA. Either way, it doesn't help us here get closer to the truth, but in fact fogs it up somewhat.

[Pluto]

Doc, all that info says nothing to me, it is just the jargon given as a kind of ceiling to further consideration, or a muddying of the waters. Like I say for the documentary interviewer the Van Allen radiation belt was an important part of his arsenal, but for me, it was, like I said, the reaction of the astronauts. Yes, the interviewer got interviews under a false pretence, he did not say at the outset that he new they didn't go, it was later after showing them footage he had and asking questions about that footage that he made himself clear, and that's when they became defense and hostile, naturally. But I say their behaviour told told a lot. If I went to the moon, and someone said I did not, when I know I did, the power lies with me, and I would not become angry, but would rather pity the sad fool for thinking in such a way. Buzz actually smacked the interviewer in the head. You have to see it and then see what you think.

This is a clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k&app=desktop

And here's the docu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFpGufxq0I

It's a fascinating piece of work which ever way you look at it. Astronauts are interesting.

[thedoc]

Doc, all that info says nothing to me, it is just the jargon given as a kind of ceiling to further consideration, or a muddying of the waters. Like I say for the documentary interviewer the Van Allen radiation belt was an important part of his arsenal, but for me, it was, like I said, the reaction of the astronauts. Yes, the interviewer got interviews under a false pretence, he did not say at the outset that he new they didn't go, it was later after showing them footage he had and asking questions about that footage that he made himself clear, and that's when they became defense and hostile, naturally. But I say their behaviour told told a lot. If I went to the moon, and someone said I did not, when I know I did, the power lies with me, and I would not become angry, but would rather pity the sad fool for thinking in such a way. Buzz actually smacked the interviewer in the head. You have to see it and then see what you think.

This is a clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wptn5RE2I-k&app=desktop

OK I, give. Stupid is, as stupid does.

[Pluto]

OK I, give. Stupid is, as stupid does.

Do you understand all that text you posted?