It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

J. White calculates why Apollo craft could not have survived passage through the VABs

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

Six hours is not going to suddenly make it unpassable, no matter how you try to twist things. It doesn't matter if it took them two hours, or if it took them eight hours, they still wouldn't have had a problem getting through them. Now if it took them days to get through it, then it might be a different story, but it didn't so it's not.


But you are saying their radiation readings are based on 2 hours not 6 or 8.
So why is there no change in their readings?


similar to what erikthelawful suggested..

you cant even prove that radiation levels for one pass through the belts had lethal dose rates.



unless you are suggesting these numbers are extremely under represented by several orders of magnitude.. in which case, nearly every single satellite operating within the VAB should have died in a year or two..

so which is it?? the numbers are fairly accurate or off by several orders of magnitude??

gemini 10 received less than 0.8 rad, regardless of how long they spent in the VAB.

if the shuttle takes about 90 mins for one orbit and about 30 mins in the VAB per orbit, given that gemini 10 was at a higher altitude its orbit would be longer and spending more time in the VAB..

so assuming gemini 10 completed 4 orbits as you claim and spends 30 mins every orbit within the VAB (even though they are higher and would spend longer within it) and accumulated ALL its rad while in the VAB ONLY and absolutely nothing during their EVA's or at any other stage of the mission, that means they would get about 0.4rad/hr in the VAB, mind you this has been overestimated at every turn..

lets assume that it takes 4 hours to pass through the VAB once, that is a total of 1.6rads.. completely survivable..

lets multiply the 0.4rad/hr by 50x because reasons or just to make you happy, thats 20rads/hr.. total 80 rads.. still very survivable..

knowing that they spend several days outside the VAB, all affects accumulated from one pass would be recovered by the time they leave lunar orbit.. so again.. survivable on re-entry..

everything points to being very much survivable while traversing the VAB even with overestimation and a random large factor.
edit on 31-7-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   
To me, in this case you can avoid all of the mathematical analysis and just put a physical evidence fact up against what is a theory. It's the rocks, all 850+ lbs. of them. Here for us to hold and analyze. Since you can only have one result, I will go with the fact that the rocks trump the math. How else can you explain how they got here?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

Well yes, normal people know that. But clowns like Jarrah White think they can baffle people with big walls of numbers on Youtube videos, so it's useful to be able to completely demolish his calculations.

Plus, you know, it keeps the old brain ticking over.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.






OR as Dr. Van Allen says about the matter....

""The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It's not the done thing to copy and paste great big chunks of text, especially without providing a link to the source:

www.clavius.org...



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
To me, in this case you can avoid all of the mathematical analysis and just put a physical evidence fact up against what is a theory. It's the rocks, all 850+ lbs. of them. Here for us to hold and analyze. Since you can only have one result, I will go with the fact that the rocks trump the math. How else can you explain how they got here?


There is no proof that 850 pounds of rocks were brought back. No third party verification.
Small samples were sent out, and those samples are re-used, and some samples turned out to be petrified wood.
Actually, we have discovered there are plenty of discrepancies with the rocks as well.
Like, there was no place to put them for the journey back.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM
Actually, we have discovered there are plenty of discrepancies with the rocks as well.
Like, there was no place to put them for the journey back.


You have discovered this, have you? Let's see your maths, then.

You do realise that sample return was one of the primary objectives of Apollo? In fact, probably the primary objective of all, after the simple goal of landing there.

Do you really not think they would leave space to bring the rocks back?


There is no proof that 850 pounds of rocks were brought back. No third party verification.
Small samples were sent out, and those samples are re-used, and some samples turned out to be petrified wood.


Lie upon lie upon lie.

EVERY SINGLE SAMPLE was painstakingly catalogued.

The catalogue for Apollo 11 alone runs to FOUR HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-EIGHT PAGES.

Samples can still be requested to this day.

And no moon rocks sample ever turned out to be petrified wood. FACT. If you are referring to the Dutch sample, that was never claimed to be a moon rock, and I can prove it extremely simply.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: charlyv
To me, in this case you can avoid all of the mathematical analysis and just put a physical evidence fact up against what is a theory. It's the rocks, all 850+ lbs. of them. Here for us to hold and analyze. Since you can only have one result, I will go with the fact that the rocks trump the math. How else can you explain how they got here?


There is no proof that 850 pounds of rocks were brought back. No third party verification.
Small samples were sent out, and those samples are re-used, and some samples turned out to be petrified wood.
Actually, we have discovered there are plenty of discrepancies with the rocks as well.
Like, there was no place to put them for the journey back.


Woah now. That's a bold statement.

You have undeniable proof of this?

That there was absolutely no space for each of the Apollo missions to bring back rock samples?

Undeniable proof that the samples were fake?

Third party verification? Sharing with the world was not third party verification???



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
A bit of simple maths for you, FoosM.



Mission...............Total mass

Apollo 11 .......... 21.7 kilograms
Apollo 12 .......... 34.4
Apollo 14 .......... 42.9
Apollo 15 .......... 76.8
Apollo 16 .......... 94.7
Apollo 17 .......... 110.5
......................................
The total mass was 381.69 kilograms or 841.6 pounds.


On Apollo 11, 21.7 kilograms of rock. The typical density is around 2500 kg/m³ (for basalt more like 3000 kg/m³, for regolith samples more like 1800 kg/m³), so those rocks would take up about 0.0087 m³.

That's about 0.3 cubic feet. Even allowing for loose packing, they would easily fit in a box a foot on each side!

For Apollo 17, the total volume comes out at a little over 1.5 cubic feet.

And remember, this includes core samples, which were brought back inside containers that were taken there on the way out!

Then think of all the food that had been eaten, water used up etc, and the waste that was left behind on the moon.

You really think they couldn't squeeze in a couple of boxes o' rocks? When the whole mission revolved around picking up rocks?

edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: charlyv

Well yes, normal people know that. But clowns like Jarrah White think they can baffle people with big walls of numbers on Youtube videos, so it's useful to be able to completely demolish his calculations.

Plus, you know, it keeps the old brain ticking over.


Sure does, but I don't think your math is complete.
I haven't had the time to go over your math or Jarrah's.
It is why I was asking for different options to see what makes sense.

Did you verify if the orbits of Gemini went into the SAA in the vicinity of 44 times or 4?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: charlyv

Well yes, normal people know that. But clowns like Jarrah White think they can baffle people with big walls of numbers on Youtube videos, so it's useful to be able to completely demolish his calculations.

Plus, you know, it keeps the old brain ticking over.


Sure does, but I don't think your math is complete.
I haven't had the time to go over your math or Jarrah's.
It is why I was asking for different options to see what makes sense.

Did you verify if the orbits of Gemini went into the SAA in the vicinity of 44 times or 4?




Check the orbital parameters for yourself, Foo. Remember, there's no sharp cut-off for the SAA, so there's a continuum of radiation. The ISS orbits at about 400km. Even in its lower orbits Gemini 10 was at about 389km, and it did eight full revolutions at its highest orbit.

I am not suggesting that Gemini was tearing through the heart of the belt for three days, but it was certainly passing through the lower portion, as the radiation dose bears out.

You might also want to check out Skylab. The astronauts on SL-4 spent almost three months up there, admittedly not quite as high, and I don't see anyone claiming that was a fake?

Now, could you get back to your extraordinary claim that there was no space on the Apollo missions for a small box of rocks?

Or your even more extraordinary claim that an Apollo sample was actually PETRIFIED WOOD?
edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: charlyv
To me, in this case you can avoid all of the mathematical analysis and just put a physical evidence fact up against what is a theory. It's the rocks, all 850+ lbs. of them. Here for us to hold and analyze. Since you can only have one result, I will go with the fact that the rocks trump the math. How else can you explain how they got here?


There is no proof that 850 pounds of rocks were brought back. No third party verification.
Small samples were sent out, and those samples are re-used, and some samples turned out to be petrified wood.
Actually, we have discovered there are plenty of discrepancies with the rocks as well.
Like, there was no place to put them for the journey back.


See this:



3 volumes of scientific research on just the Apollo 11 samples, my own personal copy, and this is just from the first conference after the landing. Lots more has been done since, and lots more on the other missions too.

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Here is a picture of the petrified wood:



Check two things. Firstly, the size. Most of the goodwill samples were about the size of a grain of rice, not hulking great lumps of rock.

Secondly, and most importantly, the date.



October 9, 1969.

And yet we know that the very first moon sample to be given to anyone outside the USA was given, with much fanfare, to President Marcos of the Philippines, in DECEMBER 1969.



(Source: Lakeland Ledger, Nov 25, 1976)

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
A bit of simple maths for you, FoosM.



Mission...............Total mass

Apollo 11 .......... 21.7 kilograms
Apollo 12 .......... 34.4
Apollo 14 .......... 42.9
Apollo 15 .......... 76.8
Apollo 16 .......... 94.7
Apollo 17 .......... 110.5
......................................
The total mass was 381.69 kilograms or 841.6 pounds.


On Apollo 11, 21.7 kilograms of rock. The typical density is around 2500 kg/m³ (for basalt more like 3000 kg/m³, for regolith samples more like 1800 kg/m³), so those rocks would take up about 0.0087 m³.

That's about 0.3 cubic feet. Even allowing for loose packing, they would easily fit in a box a foot on each side!

For Apollo 17, the total volume comes out at a little over 1.5 cubic feet.

And remember, this includes core samples, which were brought back inside containers that were taken there on the way out!

Then think of all the food that had been eaten, water used up etc, and the waste that was left behind on the moon.

You really think they couldn't squeeze in a couple of boxes o' rocks? When the whole mission revolved around picking up rocks?



Seems straight forward when you put it like that, right?
But like the radiation issue, the reality is different.
Just like your 44 orbit claim vs the 4.
Do you want to revise your calculations yet?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.



Lies upon lies right?
How can you trust anything?
You are only proving my point.


But this thread is about radiation, lets keep the focus on that.
Start another thread about the rocks.

edit on 31-7-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM
we have discovered there are plenty of discrepancies with the rocks as well.



Was that a slip of the keyboard JW



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.


But this thread is about radiation, lets keep the focus on that.
Start another thread about the rocks.


I think you spelt "Yes, you are quite correct, your simple sum proves I was talking rubbish, so sorry about that" wrong.

But fine, you brought up the rocks, you start a thread if you want.



Just like your 44 orbit claim vs the 4.
Do you want to revise your calculations yet?

No I don't. I think you may be misunderstanding. The only thing I can think you have latched onto is that only four of the highest-altitude passes were inside the SAA region. This does not mean that the remainder of the orbits, with apogees between 300 and 390km, were all outside the belts.


So you want to talk about radiation? Have you yet figured out the difference between repeatedly orbiting through the radiation belts, and passing through them into cislunar space?

And have you figured out why Gemini 11, which reached an altitude 1.8 times HIGHER than Gemini 10, had a radiation dose some 25 times LOWER?

And have you figured out why astronauts happily survived Skylab missions with doses up to 2,500 millirad, even though you seem to think that less than 200 millirad would have fried the Apollo 11 crew?

So many questions, so Foo answers.
edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.



Lies upon lies right?
How can you trust anything?
You are only proving my point.


But this thread is about radiation, lets keep the focus on that.
Start another thread about the rocks.


Proved your point?

I'm sorry but you have yet to prove one single thing in this thread.

Please explain to us the "reality" of the moon rocks?

We've shown you the reality of the VABs, an argument that you have completely lost to fact, math and reality.

So let us see this "reality" you have about the moon rocks.....and if you can actually prove a point this time.

Or are you going to hide behind deflection, typos and anything else you can try to grasp?

Seriously: everything you've tried to use in this thread so far is like trying to prop up a crumbling wall with a wet noodle.

We have yet to see your math (only an excuse that "you don't have time").

We have yet to see your proof that there was no way that any of the Apollo missions would have been able to carry any rocks back (only your word that they could not have).

Other than the video in the OP, which was completely wrong on the VABs, we've not seen much in the way of substance from you at all.

On the other hand, several people in this thread have provided math, numbers, sources and a ton of information.

Do you actually have anything concrete to post?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.


But this thread is about radiation, lets keep the focus on that.
Start another thread about the rocks.


I think you spelt "Yes, you are quite correct, your simple sum proves I was talking rubbish, so sorry about that" wrong.

But fine, you brought up the rocks, you start a thread if you want.



Um no, I dont think I brought up the rocks.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

The petrified wood thing? It's garbage.


Indeed, and here's why.

Ergo, there is no way that this rock was ever claimed to be from the moon. End of story.


But this thread is about radiation, lets keep the focus on that.
Start another thread about the rocks.


I think you spelt "Yes, you are quite correct, your simple sum proves I was talking rubbish, so sorry about that" wrong.

But fine, you brought up the rocks, you start a thread if you want.



Just like your 44 orbit claim vs the 4.
Do you want to revise your calculations yet?

No I don't. I think you may be misunderstanding. The only thing I can think you have latched onto is that only four of the highest-altitude passes were inside the SAA region. This does not mean that the remainder of the orbits, with apogees between 300 and 390km, were all outside the belts.



Of course they were under the belts.
The belts start around 1000km's
except for the SAA that dips down below that making them unavoidable.

So sorry, but you have to re-do your calculations based on 4 passes in the SAA.
Thats all.


edit on 31-7-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join