Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is it even possible to go to the Moon?

page: 15
24
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

My posts are completely relevant


You have not addressed the question yet in a single post. You only gave a opinion based on an assumption, being that the assumption is valid or invalid is not the issue, it cannot be the basis of an answer.


The answer to your speculative question will always be "no" until some agency can demonstrate the ability.

The assumption.


The Americans demonstrated Apollo in 1969 followed by ..................................... nobody.


This is Ad Hoc fallacy, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument.

If that was hard to follow, our Jupiter friend used the assumption that B is not Valid thus proved A is impossible. But there was no Evidence of why A should be Invalid which is the premise used to infer B proves A Invalid. This sidesteps the Issue of if A IS POSSIBLE, B is not evidence or a basis for a stand of a debate. Very hard for him to remove B from A isn't it? Because nothing other than B was presented to argue anything about A. A being if it is possible, B being the propensity of using a valid or invalid Opinion about the Apollo missions.


If, according to your bizarre thread stipulations, we are not allowed to reference Apollo (or to treat Apollo as if it never existed) then my reasoning is even more clear and logical. To go to the Moon one must demonstrate the ability.


Repeat that 3 times to yourself, and see if it makes sense.


"Is it even possible to go to the Moon?" Yes, for satellites and remote controlled automatic landers using 1969 technology.


Now you're a historian.

Tell me history man, what is so different with the technology to launch heavy lifts today than then? The science began in 1926. (This reminds me of when someone asks me how long it took me to paint a particular picture, where they totally miss the point that it took me my whole life).

What we have here is number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive argument; they're known as fallacies. In everyday English, we refer to many kinds of mistaken beliefs as fallacies; but in logic, the term has a more specific meaning: a fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound or invalid.

(Note that you can criticize more than just the soundness of an argument. Arguments are almost always presented with some specific purpose in mind–and the intent of the argument may also be worthy of criticism.)

Arguments which contain fallacies are fallacious. They often appear valid and convincing, all I have read so far about Jupiter's reveals logic flaws.

Thanks for wasting our time.

I'm going to now loosen my vanallen belt and relax.
edit on 17-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



Thanks for wasting our time.


Don't thank me yet!


Here is what DJW said in the OP:

Although there are obviously risks involved, such a mission could easily be undertaken with existing technology. All that is required is money.


If going to the moon were as easy as DJW's scenario (off the shelf Soyuz, off the shelf rocket system, and money) then why hasn't there been a demonstration of this ability?

DJW's scenario was broadened on page 2 when he made a further statement with regard to the speediness of such a demonstration..

If we suddenly needed to dispatch a manned craft to the Moon to check out some amazing anomaly, the governments of the world could cobble something together and have a team out there in about a week.


According to DJW it's easy to go to the moon and we could cobble something together in 1 week. 1 WEEK!


It's laughable if it weren't so pitiful.
Now where is your logical concern for DJW's scenario??

I tried to add something constructive to the "debate" by pointing out the misnomers and the conceptual straw man camps (see once again DJW's OP). Yet fundamentalist disagreements are what we are dealing with.

To wit:

DJW exhibited his link to the IRPA9 document on page 4. w3.tue.nl...

This is nothing less than an appeal to authority.

What does IRPA9 say about SPE? It says


What does IRPA9 say about Apollo 14? It says "Apollo 14 traversed a 'hot' portion of the radiation belt".


DJW's OP stipulates:

Let us imagine that project Apollo never happened, and strike all that evidence from the record.


Yet DJW cites the IRPA9 document which contains Apollo data. This is not logical.

DJW001 claims on page 5

I provided you with a paper written by Czech (not American) scientists who used Russian (not American) research to reach the conclusion that the right trajectory and a few millimeters of aluminum would mitigate the radiation hazard of the ERB ("Van Allen Belts").


Here is a page from the IRPA9 document which indicates that some data was "Route dosis easily obtained through calculations (USA)"



DJW001 emphasized the fact that IRPA9 document are (not American) scientists. Well - maybe they are (not American) scientists but they are using American data.

Do you care to deal with this logically, Illustronic?
edit on 1/18/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
With respect to DJW's OP, I would like DJW to show his cost estimates for:

1. one unit, off the shelf Soyuz
2. one unit, off the shelf rocket launch system
3. cobbled together mission components
4. labor overtime costs for 1 week
5. cost of getting Bruce Willis to star in your picture

Hey wut?
edit on 1/18/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: comma



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here is a page from the IRPA9 document which indicates that some data was "Route dosis easily obtained through calculations (USA)"


So, just ignore that part.

As for the rest of your rant:

www.space.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
In response to the OP - 'yes'.

Did you gain much from that?

So you made a thread with a narrow loaded question on a topic you have in-depth knowledge of, hoping to bait people with less knowledge so that you and your left-brain dominant friends can rip them to shreds with your superior minds.

Impressive, I might do the same - I could do with an ego-boost too.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Here is a page from the IRPA9 document which indicates that some data was "Route dosis easily obtained through calculations (USA)"


So, just ignore that part.

As for the rest of your rant:

www.space.com...


So what about this 'hot spot' on A14? How did they get nearly double the exposure of A12? What happened? Ooops. You don't want to talk about the history.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



So what about this 'hot spot' on A14? How did they get nearly double the exposure of A12? What happened? Ooops. You don't want to talk about the history.


You know I enjoy talking about the history, just not on this thread. If you have an issue with a photograph, start a new thread. You know I'll be there.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
my question is on the footage of the lift off on the moon of the lunar module how did the camera pan up to keep the module in frame?www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spacejosh
 



my question is on the footage of the lift off on the moon of the lunar module how did the camera pan up to keep the module in frame?www.youtube.com...


It was operated by remote control. More here:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


You know a question can be stated in a simple easy sentence, an informative answer requires a thread's worth of text to be thorough enough to not be misunderstood. Browsing the graph posted about this you understand those readings were skin surface readings and not blood penetrating levels, they had no way to measure in flight blood penetrating levels but data suggests less than 40% of skin levels are observed. This is where the scale devised for accepted levels of exposure for the time durations of exposure was demonstrated to be well within a safe zone, in fact 20% lower than accepted levels with no adverse recuperative or lasting issues. In short, that accepted level was at least 500% higher than the most absorbed radiation of any Apollo mission measured through clinical studies afterwards.

If you want comprehensive articulation you need to start a thread on what issues you have with radiation exposure during Apollo, actual, not in an event that didn't occur from the sun. As this graph (from the document you sited) shows, the years of Apollo enjoyed a sizable solar minimum dip.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
So what about this 'hot spot' on A14? How did they get nearly double the exposure of A12? What happened?


Why does it matter what happened? I had to carry a dosimeter at some point in my career, and sure enough was getting more dose on some shifts vs others. This could be due to a different accelerator settings in that particular run or zillion other factors like a malfunctioning interlock. OK, they might have grazed some "hot spot" in the radiation belt, what does it meant in terms of "possible" vs "impossible"?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


This is where the scale devised for accepted levels of exposure for the time durations of exposure was demonstrated to be well within a safe zone, in fact 20% lower than accepted levels with no adverse recuperative or lasting issues. In short, that accepted level was at least 500% higher than the most absorbed radiation of any Apollo mission measured through clinical studies afterwards.


I re-read my post and noticed a typo. I should have typed– "20% OF", and not 'lower than'. That is where the 500% comes in.

If you have 20% of a dollar that guy that has a dollar has 500% more than you.

Don't believe me? re-read that document sited. If I'm mistaken again, I can post where it is sited in the Biomedical Results from Apollo document, (the very page should show up in that link), that made its rounds here also, yes I do read them, though I do call it browsing; its not my field of study, or profession. I get the 'easy' part of those kinds of things, I only illustrate the text, technical writers do the gritty verification of the text, what a drag...
edit on 20-1-2012 by Illustronic because: damn font size didn't take



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Glargod
 



The whole thing is plausible at best but IMO still remains the better part of a Jules Vern story. .


Plausible works. The point to this thread is not whether or not "NASA faked the Moon landings."

The question is: is sending people to the Moon even possible? I say it is.


Economically it should be feasible. Some people subspecies more costly to keep on the Earth in the long run.
edit on 19.5.2012 by bokonon2010 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join