Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 06:20 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.

That's total bunk. The rocks were distributed to some of the world's best scientists. Not one of them disagreed with the origin and authenticity. Most important, when the surface of these rocks were examined, they had micro cratering from small meteoroid bombardment, and only on the sides that were facing upright. There is no way that micro impacts could happen in an atmosphere, because no small objects that size can make it through an atmosphere and maintain the cosmic velocity necessary to create them. They had to be created in a near vacuum.

Saying that there was no place to put them is totally wrong, and there were bins purposefully designed to contain them and bring them back. It is all documented, and part of the mission.

And Petrified wood? please.

There are no scientific discrepancies with the rocks, but plenty from those not educated enough to correctly analyze and comment on them. Such is the case with so much of our greatest achievements.




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

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.


Question for you: what altitude does the ISS orbit at? How about Mir? Remember that?

Second question: how does that compare to the lower altitude orbits of Gemini 10?

I'll throw in the answer to the third question: astronauts on board ISS/Mir are/were exposed to some 100 millirad per day. A six month mission on Mir typically gave about 17 rads of exposure.

Do you now see why Gemini 10 racked up such a high exposure?
edit on 31-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Too true, I had cut and pasted the link, but was at work and hit reply before I had the link in....and did not get back before my four hours had ended.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I actually wonder — and this is not just me being flippant or insulting — whether Jarrah may have a mild form of dyscalculia.


Just going back to this idea, I found this.

Assuming this is the same Jarrah White, it appears that a couple of years ago he was making himself some self-help presentations to handle basic mathematics.

It does make you wonder. Maybe he really is the spiritual grandson of Ralph "pi = 3" René...



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

Do you now see why Gemini 10 racked up such a high exposure?


These are your words Rob48:




It's really quite straightforward, Foos. The missions that spent LONGER in the belts encountered MORE radiation in total.

It's almost... what's the word...?

OBVIOUS!


I know you now know that Gemini spent less time in the belts than Apollo did.
Why doesn't the exposure readings reflect that?

Here is what you said:


For comparison, the equivalent total on Apollo 11 was 173 millirads: about four times lower than that encountered on Gemini 10.


But Apollo 11 spent more time in the belts, probably more than four times than Gemini 10.
The reverse of your statement. From the top of my head, I think it takes like 15 minutes
to go through the SAA. So thats like an hours worth. Even if you wanted to go with your 30 min,
its still at least 2 hours less than Apollo 11.

Thats a problem Rob48. You can't have it both ways, you can't say:



It's really quite straightforward, Foos. The missions that spent LONGER in the belts encountered MORE radiation in total.


And try to explain the reverse when it doesn't fit the facts.
Thats flip-flopping for the convenience of your argument.

Im trying to establish facts that both sides of the argument can agree upon.

So lets try this again, to anyone out there:
Did any of the Apollo missions fly through the heart, or the harshest part, of the Van Allen Belts?



edit on 1-8-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM


I know you now know that Gemini spent less time in the belts than Apollo did.


What are you on about? Gemini was in a 380km orbit for over TWO DAYS! That is a similar height to Mir or the (better shielded) ISS.

Can you do the maths?

TWO DAYS! Well over 50 hours in fact. Of this, over 12 hours was in a very high orbit. Eight full orbits with a 763km apogee.

After two days Apollo was well over half way to the moon. The Van Allen belts were way behind them.

Which spent more time in the belts?


So lets try this again, to anyone out there:
Did any of the Apollo missions fly through the heart, or the harshest part, of the Van Allen Belts?


Again this is a meaningless question unless you quantify it. All the missions cut through the edge of the inner belt and passed through the high flux area of the outer (electron) belt. They avoided the high-flux areas of the inner (proton) belt. Apollo 14 cut through a bit closer to the equator so was in the stronger radiation for a bit longer.

All the dose figures are in the public domain Foos.

Why not ask about Skylab? 2,500 millirad!
edit on 1-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Last post. It's bed time.

This is a close-up plot of the inner belt. The time for Apollo to travel from the first red dot to the second was 10 MINUTES.



Gemini, however, was circling repeatedly with an inclination of about 28.8 degrees. Remember, this plot shows the average height. In the SAA the belt dips down to ~200km.

After less than 10 minutes, Apollo was already in a region with less than 10% of the peak proton intensity.

As I showed in my video, VAB electrons provide a essentially negligible radiation dose. Protons are the danger. Less than 10 mins for Apollo. Much longer for Gemini, even though the altitude was less. Got it?
edit on 1-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FoosM


I know you now know that Gemini spent less time in the belts than Apollo did.


What are you on about? Gemini was in a 380km orbit for over TWO DAYS! That is a similar height to Mir or the (better shielded) ISS.



So? What does that have to do with the VABs besides not being in the VABs?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
Last post. It's bed time.

This is a close-up plot of the inner belt. The time for Apollo to travel from the first red dot to the second was 10 MINUTES.



Gemini, however, was circling repeatedly with an inclination of about 28.8 degrees. Remember, this plot shows the average height. In the SAA the belt dips down to ~200km.



So lets be clear, are you saying Gemini 10 spent its entire mission in the region of the SAA?
Because thats what it sounds like you are saying.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way


Do you want to go also on record and state that Gemini spent its entire mission inside the SAA?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Are you saying that at around 380km astronauts will receive 0 rads??? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.
edit on 1-8-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

So lets be clear, are you saying Gemini 10 spent its entire mission in the region of the SAA?
Because thats what it sounds like you are saying.




It's clear enough already. Read what was written.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way


Do you want to go also on record and state that Gemini spent its entire mission inside the SAA?


"Inside" as in "between the belts and the Earth", rather than "outside", as in "beyond the belts"? Sure.

And during some of that time it was passing through the lower parts of the belt.

You seem to have this idea that the belts are a solid object with hard boundaries. They're not. The radiation increases over a range of altitude.

That's why even airline crews at heights of about 10km get more radiation than we do down on the ground.


So lets be clear, are you saying Gemini 10 spent its entire mission in the region of the SAA?
Because thats what it sounds like you are saying.

Of course not. The SAA only covers about a third of the globe, latitudinally. But Gemini 10's orbit had an inclination of 28.85 degrees which is plenty enough to ensure that it regularly passed through higher radiation levels.

I don't know how to explain it much more simply! Everyone else here seems to be able to grasp it.
edit on 2-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way


Do you want to go also on record and state that Gemini spent its entire mission inside the SAA?


"Inside" as in "between the belts and the Earth", rather than "outside", as in "beyond the belts"? Sure.

And during some of that time it was passing through the lower parts of the belt.

You seem to have this idea that the belts are a solid object with hard boundaries. They're not. The radiation increases over a range of altitude.

That's why even airline crews at heights of about 10km get more radiation than we do down on the ground.



Ahhh, now even we here on Earth that fly in planes are affected by
the Van Allen Belts you say. Thats the first time I ever heard that.
Where did you gain this knowledge, what are your sources?
I would like to read about that.






So lets be clear, are you saying Gemini 10 spent its entire mission in the region of the SAA?
Because thats what it sounds like you are saying.

Of course not. The SAA only covers about a third of the globe, latitudinally.


Ok, so now the SAA covers a third of the globe... Did you measure that yourself?




But Gemini 10's orbit had an inclination of 28.85 degrees which is plenty enough to ensure that it regularly passed through higher radiation levels.


Interesting... and here I thought NASA was trying to keep GX away from strong radiation areas because of
the sensitive experiments they wanted to conduct. So I don't get where you are coming up with that conclusion.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

Are you saying that at around 380km astronauts will receive 0 rads??? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.


Is that what you think Im saying, then please show me where I am saying that.
And after, tell me if any Apollo mission flew through the centre of the belts



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: FoosM

So lets be clear, are you saying Gemini 10 spent its entire mission in the region of the SAA?
Because thats what it sounds like you are saying.




It's clear enough already. Read what was written.



Are you the alternative account for Rob48?



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way


Do you want to go also on record and state that Gemini spent its entire mission inside the SAA?


"Inside" as in "between the belts and the Earth", rather than "outside", as in "beyond the belts"? Sure.

And during some of that time it was passing through the lower parts of the belt.

You seem to have this idea that the belts are a solid object with hard boundaries. They're not. The radiation increases over a range of altitude.

That's why even airline crews at heights of about 10km get more radiation than we do down on the ground.



Ahhh, now even we here on Earth that fly in planes are affected by
the Van Allen Belts you say. Thats the first time I ever heard that.
Where did you gain this knowledge, what are your sources?
I would like to read about that.


Not affected by the Van Allen belts. Affected by the higher radiation at higher altitude, which continues right up to the Van Allen belts. At airliner cruising altitude (~ 10-11 km) radiation is about 10 times that on Earth. Surely you knew that?


From en.wikipedia.org...



Ok, so now the SAA covers a third of the globe... Did you measure that yourself?

A third of the globe latitudinally, I said. Did I measure it? Well, I eyeballed it from this map:



I would estimate that as roughly 85 degrees west to 35 degrees east. 85 + 35 = 120 degrees, which is a third of 360 degrees. Comprende?



Interesting... and here I thought NASA was trying to keep GX away from strong radiation areas because of
the sensitive experiments they wanted to conduct. So I don't get where you are coming up with that conclusion.


I think you have your Geminis mixed up — well they are twins after all.


Gemini 11 was specifically designed to avoid exposure: it had only two high-apogee orbits, rather than 12 as for Gemini 10, and they were aligned over Australia.

Edit: Oh, I see this thread is now in the HOAX bin. When did that happen? Good to see Jarrah in his natural environment.
edit on 2-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Looks like the thread has been moved......

And I agree with where it's at.

The effects of the VABs on astronauts is well documented, and the math holds up.

You can't fake the math.

Or rather....you can try to fake the math.....and those that know how to do it, will call those out that tried to do so.

Go mods!



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Serious questions do you have learning difficulties


Rob48 couldn't have explained this any clearer so do you go to your youtube site sorry JW's and harass him the same way


Do you want to go also on record and state that Gemini spent its entire mission inside the SAA?


"Inside" as in "between the belts and the Earth", rather than "outside", as in "beyond the belts"? Sure.

And during some of that time it was passing through the lower parts of the belt.

You seem to have this idea that the belts are a solid object with hard boundaries. They're not. The radiation increases over a range of altitude.

That's why even airline crews at heights of about 10km get more radiation than we do down on the ground.



Ahhh, now even we here on Earth that fly in planes are affected by
the Van Allen Belts you say. Thats the first time I ever heard that.
Where did you gain this knowledge, what are your sources?
I would like to read about that.


Not affected by the Van Allen belts. Affected by the higher radiation at higher altitude, which continues right up to the Van Allen belts. At airliner cruising altitude (~ 10-11 km) radiation is about 10 times that on Earth. Surely you knew that?


From en.wikipedia.org...



Ok, so now the SAA covers a third of the globe... Did you measure that yourself?

A third of the globe latitudinally, I said. Did I measure it? Well, I eyeballed it from this map:



I would estimate that as roughly 85 degrees west to 35 degrees east. 85 + 35 = 120 degrees, which is a third of 360 degrees. Comprende?


Oh, I know what you meant by it. I just don't get whats your point.
None of it affects us down here on the globe.





Interesting... and here I thought NASA was trying to keep GX away from strong radiation areas because of
the sensitive experiments they wanted to conduct. So I don't get where you are coming up with that conclusion.


I think you have your Geminis mixed up — well they are twins after all.



No, its in the documents probably linked to.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join