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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM


Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.


See that? Van Allen does not agree with your "Quick Enough" theory. There is no "quick enough" if there is no
sufficient shielding.



can you provide a link to where Dr James Van Allen actually says this??

the only place i can find this is on Jarrah's website which is in Jarrahs words NOT Van Allens..




posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


It wasn't just aluminium. Aluminium shielding isn't a theory, it's been used in spacecraft for decades.


Apollo was the first.
Explain how Aluminum was the wonder material that could have the spacecraft pass
through the heart of the Van Allen Belts without problem.

What was wrong with Gemini's shielding?

According to NASA


An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem

science.nasa.gov...

1 million rads is basically a 1 million rem.
How much would the Apollo hull block?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

1 million rads is basically a 1 million rem.
How much would the Apollo hull block?


why would it need to block it when it can avoid it??

why is it that hoax believers when faced with a 2m wide wall of fire, that they cant seem to figure out how to pass it? is it so difficult to go around the hot parts??

im guessing if you saw this in front of your house it would mean you cant leave your property anymore?

edit on 27-7-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

FoosM, you posted JW's video. You invited anyone to "challenge his math".

I spent two hours of my time, unpaid, going through the maths and showing that it was flawed from start to finish. Not only were the calculations wrong, but the numbers he fed into them at the beginning were also vastly wrong.

Have you acknowledged this or thanked me for doing as you asked? No, you just keep on posting further rubbish that illustrates your total lack of understanding of how radiation works and what it consists of.

And again, what do you mean by "the dosimeters didn't go off"?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: FoosM

FoosM, you posted JW's video. You invited anyone to "challenge his math".

I spent two hours of my time, unpaid, going through the maths and showing that it was flawed from start to finish. Not only were the calculations wrong, but the numbers he fed into them at the beginning were also vastly wrong.

Have you acknowledged this or thanked me for doing as you asked? No, you just keep on posting further rubbish that illustrates your total lack of understanding of how radiation works and what it consists of.

And again, what do you mean by "the dosimeters didn't go off"?


Oh I did acknowledge it. When I pointed out that Jarrah had fixed his calculations.
But my apologies, I didn't realise you needed my commendation.
Thank you very much for participating which is helping us all get to the truth of the matter.
Because what I have also been asking for is NASA's math to compare everyone else to.
I find it strange that such info is lacking.

When looking for info, this is what NASA supplies.



Blue = 0.0001 Rads/sec Green= 0.001 Rads/sec Yellow= 0.005 Rads/sec Orange= 0.01 Rads/sec and Red= 0.05 Rads/sec


Now please tell me, is this unshielded or shielded?
Where do they even get these figures from?
They don't explain.

They also say:


a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour


or 3 sieverts.
Given that the VABs can expose an astronaut to thousands of sieverts, how was the transit possible?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

1 million rads is basically a 1 million rem.
How much would the Apollo hull block?


why would it need to block it when it can avoid it??


Can avoid what? They never did. As a matter of fact they went straight through the
heart of the belts. How do you call that avoiding?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM


Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.


See that? Van Allen does not agree with your "Quick Enough" theory. There is no "quick enough" if there is no
sufficient shielding.



can you provide a link to where Dr James Van Allen actually says this??

the only place i can find this is on Jarrah's website which is in Jarrahs words NOT Van Allens..


Jarrah sources all his material, why can't you find where he got it from??



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

It's become quite obvious that you really do not understand how ionized radiation, exposure and shielding against it works.

Before you continue to post, you really should stop, sit down and research this area of knowledge. Here's some links to help you:

Ionizing Radiation

Radiation Exposure

Radiation Protection

Van Allen Radiation Belt

Apollo Command/Service Module

You have repeatedly shown that you either do not understand different kinds of radiation are, how they are measured, what those measurments mean, and specifically shielding and time affect the dosage.

Van Allen Belts - Implications For Space Travel





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.[27] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[28] 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.[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.[26]


Bold emphasis in the above quote mine.

It takes a YEAR of exposure for something to receive such a high dose.

Even if the Apollo astronauts had spent a whole DAY in the most intense regions, with less shielding than they had (the same as the satellite instead), their total dosage would have been 68 mSv (or 0.068 Sv), which is just a little more than what a chest X-ray gives you.

Astronauts are much more at risk from cosmic back ground radiation and solar radiation due to LONG term space flight (more than a week or so).

Do some research and reading. You can even read NASA's own report on it made in 1973 here.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

1 million rads is basically a 1 million rem.
How much would the Apollo hull block?


why would it need to block it when it can avoid it??


Can avoid what? They never did. As a matter of fact they went straight through the
heart of the belts. How do you call that avoiding?

For the third time:

THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE HEART OF THE BELTS!

Did you even look at the chart I posted twice? The trajectory barely clipped the >1000 particle per second zone.

Do you understand this? Yes or no?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM


Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.


See that? Van Allen does not agree with your "Quick Enough" theory. There is no "quick enough" if there is no
sufficient shielding.



can you provide a link to where Dr James Van Allen actually says this??

the only place i can find this is on Jarrah's website which is in Jarrahs words NOT Van Allens..


Jarrah sources all his material, why can't you find where he got it from??


i cant find the source because he failed to source his statement properly.. im specifically talking about this quote from his website FAQ..


Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.


there is no reference for this statement.. and if there was, he didnt reference it properly..


Can avoid what? They never did. As a matter of fact they went straight through the
heart of the belts. How do you call that avoiding?


if they went through the heart of the van allen belt as you claim, than the trajectory would be a straight horizontal line on the charts that Jarrah used in his video..

but its not..
prove your claim that they went through the heart of the van allen belt.. and then prove how long they stayed in there.. you want to make some wild claims, you are going to have to back it up.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

1 million rads is basically a 1 million rem.
How much would the Apollo hull block?


why would it need to block it when it can avoid it??


Can avoid what? They never did. As a matter of fact they went straight through the
heart of the belts. How do you call that avoiding?

For the third time:

THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE HEART OF THE BELTS!

Did you even look at the chart I posted twice? The trajectory barely clipped the >1000 particle per second zone.

Do you understand this? Yes or no?



What I understand is there were other missions besides Apollo 11.
Does Braenig chart all the other missions or only Apollo 11?

Now if he only provided info on Apollo 11, do you want to claim that only Apollo 11 went to the moon?
Yes or No?

And if you don't want to claim that only Apollo 11 went to the moon then do you want to right here and now
claim that all missions followed the same trajectory as Apollo 11 ?
Yes or No?



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well going by Foosm's previous history YOU could fly him through the belts and bring him back and he would deny it happened, we already have a 635 page thread on his worship of everything JW spouts and this will end up the same stop posting and let it die he won't except any evidence because.

1) He is JW
2) He is related to JW
3) He is a windup merchant.
4) He can't understand

USE any combination of the above after all he can't even understand how shadows follow the terrain they land on!!!!!



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?




Let's be really generous and assume that the average of all those >100 MeV particles is double that: 200 MeV. (It will actually be far less.)

Energy flux = 1000 x 200 MeV per cm² per sec.

= 200,000 MeV / cm² / sec.

Multiply up by surface area of human body (0.85 m²) to find energy absorbed per second.

200,000 MeV / cm² / sec x 0.85 m² x 10,000 cm² / m² = 1.7 x 10^9 MeV / sec.

Time spent in zone = three minutes or 180 sec.

Total energy absorbed = 1.7 x 10^9 MeV / sec x 180 sec = 3.06 x 10^11 MeV.

Convert to joules:

3.06 x 10^11 MeV x 1.6 x 10^-13 J / MeV = 0.049 J.

Convert to grays for 75 kg man/

0.049 J / 75 kg = 0.00065 Gy.

= 0.065 rad!



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Bravo! Very good!

Don't expect a reply to it though. My posts have been ignored.

Why?

Because you can't argue the math or physics.

Instead you have someone making an argument like this:

"The sun puts out harmful UV rays that will give you a bad sun burn! Therefore you can not go outside and be exposed to the sun!"

When in reality, we all know that what actually counts (among several things) is the TIME of exposure.

Yes, the sun does put out harmful UV rays. Yes they can give you a bad sun burn.
But it also depends upon how long you are exposed to those harmful UV rays.

If I go out into the sun and I'm in it for 1 minute, the amount of UV rays that affect me is different than if I were to go out into the sun and spend a whole hour in it.

One situation would give me a bad sun burn. The other will not, simply because my exposure time to it is too short.

The math has shown over and over that even at 2 GeV, short exposure times are not lethal. An astronaut would have to spend literally days or weeks, with no shielding at all, to end up with a lethal dosage.

Translunar injection orbit does not do that. It carries you though the inner belt quite swiftly (I believe Apollo 11 took 15 minutes to pass through the short part they went though and another 2 hours later on passing through the outer belt).

Believers of Moon Landing Hoax are almost never convinced no mater how much evidence, math and physics you show them. It's a religion to them. They MUST believe that the moon landings were hoaxed, and will have the most closed minds that you have ever met.

They'll never admit they were wrong about something.

Ever.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?



Now that you had some practice, do it for the flight where it goes through the heart of the belt.
Because that's on record, and you cant "skirt" around it.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?



Now that you had some practice, do it for the flight where it goes through the heart of the belt.
Because that's on record, and you cant "skirt" around it.


Which flight was this? Show me a link to the trajectory and I will work it out. Apollo 14 had the highest exposure of the lot. Is that what you meant?

By the way that 0.065 rad figure above was for totally unshielded astronauts.
edit on 27-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?



Now that you had some practice, do it for the flight where it goes through the heart of the belt.
Because that's on record, and you cant "skirt" around it.


Which flight was this? Show me a link to the trajectory and I will work it out. Apollo 14 had the highest exposure of the lot. Is that what you meant?

By the way that 0.065 rad figure above was for totally unshielded astronauts.


Apollo 14 had the highest exposure, what caused it? The VABs or a Solar Flare?



) Conversely, it is
known and verified that Apollo XIV crossed intense solar
flares explaining the impressive 11.4 mGy measured during
the mission while a 5 times lower dose was expected. This
last dose was the highest radiation dose of all the manned
spatial missions at this period.25,32)
First radiobiological investigations

jrr.oxfordjournals.org...

was that the cause?
edit on 27-7-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?



Now that you had some practice, do it for the flight where it goes through the heart of the belt.
Because that's on record, and you cant "skirt" around it.


OK I'll indulge you Foos, as I have some time to kill on a long journey.

Let's assume an absolute worst case scenario and pretend that Apollo 14 was launched straight along the geomagnetic equator, at the same speed as Apollo 11. That would take it right through the very strongest part of the inner belt.

If you refer back to that chart and imagine flattening the curved trajectory down to a straight line across the middle, you will see that it would take something between 20 and 30 minutes to cross the belt.

Again I will round up and call it 30 minutes.

Of this, the first half (15 mins) will be in the 1000 particle / cm² / sec zone. The remaining 15 minutes will be evenly split between the 100, 10 and 1 particle / cm² / sec zones (5 mins in each).

So let's work out the particle flux:

1000 zone:

1000 particles / cm² / sec x 15 min x 60 sec / min = 900,000 particles / cm².

100 zone:

100 particles / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 30,000 particles / cm².

10 zone:

10 particles / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 3,000 particles / cm².

1 zone:

1 particle / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 300 particles / cm².

Total = 933,300 particles / cm².

Again assuming average of 200 MeV / particle:

Total energy flux = 933,300 particles / cm² x 200 MeV / particle = 186,660,000 MeV / cm².

Multiply up by astronaut body surface area:

186,660,000 MeV / cm² x 0.85 m² x 10,000 cm² / m² = 1.59 x 10^12 MeV.

Now, as we are passing through the centre of the belt we need to take into account the higher energy particles there. Here is a plot of the flux of >400 MeV particles. Note that it shows a smaller area than the plot before.



As this is a smaller area (only out to just over 2 Earth radii), the spacecraft would cross it in about 20 minutes. We can divide this as follows:

4 minutes at 100 particles / cm² / sec = 24,000 particles / cm²
4 minutes at 500 particles / cm² / sec = 120,000 particles / cm²
Another 4 minutes at 100 particles / cm² / sec = 24,000 particles / cm²
4 minutes at 10 particles / cm² / sec = 2,400 particles / cm²
4 minutes at 1 particle / cm² / sec = 240 particles / cm²

Total = 170,640 particles / cm².

Now remember, these will already have been included in the count of >100 MeV particles before, so I am actually double counting here making the worst-case scenario even worse!

Now let's go mad and take the energy of each particle as 1 GeV (1,000 MeV) here.

Total energy flux = 170,640 particles / cm² x 1,000 MeV / particle = 170,640,000 MeV / cm².

Multiply up by astronaut body surface area:

85,320,000 MeV / cm² x 0.85 m² x 10,000 cm² / m² = 1.45 x 10^12 MeV.

Add to the total from the >100 MeV particles before:

1.59 x 10^12 MeV + 1.45 x 10^12 MeV = 3.04 x 10^12 MeV

Convert to joules:

3.04 x 10^12 MeV x 1.6 x 10^-13 J / MeV = 0.486 J.

Convert to grays for a 75 kg man:

0.486 J / 75 kg = 0.0065 Gy.

Convert to rads:

0.0034 Gy x 100 rad / Gy = 0.65 rad.

Now multiply by two for a two-way trip.

Total = a whopping 1.3 rad, and that was with me overestimating the dose at almost every step!

For reference, the actual dose received by the Apollo 14 crew (including skirting the outer belt and traversing cis-lunar space) was 1.14 rad.

Obviously, A14 didn't go straight through the centre of the belt. It just went through more of it. The radiation was higher than expected because, as you mentioned, solar activity was higher.

NB this calculation only covers the inner belt, where the most energetic protons are found.

edit on 27-7-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48
So, just how much radiation did skirting the edge of the high radiation zone deliver?



Now that you had some practice, do it for the flight where it goes through the heart of the belt.
Because that's on record, and you cant "skirt" around it.


OK I'll indulge you Foos, as I have some time to kill on a long journey.


Great, thank you for the effort you put into that.
But why stop there, why don't you go ahead and do the Electron belt too?




edit on 27-7-2014 by Kandinsky because: excessive quote snipped



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
1000 zone:
1000 particles / cm² / sec x 15 min x 60 sec / min = 900,000 particles / cm².
100 zone:
100 particles / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 30,000 particles / cm².
10 zone:
10 particles / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 3,000 particles / cm².
1 zone:
1 particle / cm² / sec x 5 min x 60 sec / min = 300 particles / cm².
Total = 933,300 particles / cm².




By the way, where is the 10,000 particles per second zone?
I believe what many would call that the heart of the inner belt?



That begs the question, why didn't you use the AP8MAX chart?
Apollo's missions were during the Solar Max period.
So you should take that into account.

edit on 27-7-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2014 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join