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.

 

Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

page: 13
45
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
And yes, I have read your "Orion spacecraft has to take a different trajectory through the Vann Allen Belts than the Apollo Missions and therefore has to cope with more radiation" argument, which is still not sourced by you and therefore conjecture at best.

And considering the first quote I included from you, I don't think you're in any position to demand sources or to declare someone else's information to be 'conjecture at best'.


I can and I do. You are no judge of me, my friend. I have sourced all of my claims in this thread.

-MM

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaosComplex

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
Oh, I was just joking since your avatar had a crystal ball.

I must humbly admit that I my knowledge of Moon rocks is lacking, the documentary in my post seems pretty informed though, thus their claims are my claims, I can't really go more in-depth than that. Sorry about that Zaphod58.

-MM


How the hell can this conversation even continue beyond a statement like that?

You're basically saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I enjoyed how ______ presented his/her/their theory so I'm just going to parrot their words and deflect when I can't explain myself."

This is seriously the tone of each and every post from OP in this thread, except this time you've admitted you have no idea...very hard to take someone seriously after something like that.

Absolutely insane.


I honestly admitted that I'm no geologist and only referenced other peoples work, sourcing others work is done often as not all work has to be original for it to be valid, same rule applies within science texts etc. So, I don't know what you mean is "absolutely insane" about sourcing someone elses work.

-MM

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


I have sourced all of my claims in this thread.

I must have missed the source for this one


Aluminum was not chosen by NASA for its shielding properties - as it is a poor shield

Got anything?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Anyone using J. White as a source should take a good look at this thread here (and of course where it's at right now).

Especially those going on and on about the Van Allen belts, shielding etc, etc.

It's a dead horse that is trying to be beaten to death. We showed last time in this thread beyond a doubt that it was possible, including the math behind the dosings:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation


I have sourced all of my claims in this thread.

I must have missed the source for this one


Aluminum was not chosen by NASA for its shielding properties - as it is a poor shield

Got anything?


It is pretty obvious, but here you go:

The Apollo Command Model was made of an aluminum honeycomb-sandwich bonded between sheets of aluminum alloy.
...
Ever since the launch of Sputnik a half-century ago, aluminum has been the material of choice for space structures of all types. Chosen for its light weight and its ability to withstand the stresses that occur during launch and operation in space, aluminum has been used on Apollo spacecraft, the Skylab, the space shuttles and the International Space Station. Aluminum alloys consistently exceed other metals in such areas as mechanical stability, dampening, thermal management and reduced weight.

Source

...and nothing about aluminium being used for radiation shielding.


-MM
edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Sigh. Just because it didn't say anything about radiation doesn't mean it was not thought of.

As I said, the thread link I posted discussed this (you really ARE beating a DEAD HORSE):

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]


I high suggest you go read the 13 page thread I linked to. This subject was shot dead by ATS members here, showing that yes indeed Apollo astronauts were able to traverse the VABs in the short amount of time they needed to get to the moon and back.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
In a former life, I worked around a lot of ionizing radiation. This was due to our nuclear weapons program in the United States. When radiation exposure was discussed, the topic of lead shielding always came up.
The response and engineering were always the same, lead shielding causes worse secondary radiation than no shielding or minimal shielding used at all.
For that reason, aluminum was used on spacecraft and boron mixed in concrete was used in storage facilities. This minimized the radiation exposure levels, and as long as you did not plan to live in close proximity for more than a month or so, your body could recover from the effects.
We were told to not eat toast or meat that was char broiled or well done, as it slows down your bodies recovery from exposure. Charred food is burned and ingesting this type of food caused your body to fight that instead of the radiation exposure. Drinking milk was encouraged also.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Really? You're sure of that?


Researchers who did the study assumed the Mars-ship would be built "mostly of aluminum, like an old Apollo command module," says Cucinotta. The spaceship's skin would absorb about half the radiation hitting it.



Apollo command modules were well-enough shielded for quick trips to the Moon and back. [More]
But astronauts traveling to Mars will be "out there" for a year or more. "We can't yet estimate, reliably, what cosmic rays will do to us when we're exposed for so long," he says.

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

You have to remember that this thread is about NASA now in 2014 is saying that the Vann Allen Belts radiation is a problem for space travel, not me. Tell NASA that they are "beating a dead horse" as it is they that are saying Vann Allen Belts radiation is a challenge, I'm just pointing it out.

Here is the transcripts from NASA again to remind you:



As we get further away from Earth, we will pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space.
-NASA in 2014

-MM

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was saying that there was nothing in the NASA documentation that I could find that the Apollo Mission's aluminum honeycomb was used as a radiation shield, only that it was used as a lightweight structural component. I was not referring to the Orion Mission in that reply as it was about the Apollo Program and not about Orion.

-MM
edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yep.

And you have to realize the the equipment on Orion is NOTHING like the equipment that was on board Apollo.

Semiconductors produced today are much, much more sensitive to highly ionized subatomic particles.

What was used in the 1960s was not. But it also was a LOT more bulky and much more limited than what we have today.

This is not about exposure to the astronauts. That became very well understood over time.

This is about their craft failing because of the sensitive equipment it will have.

You've been told several times that there is a HUGE difference between the words "challenge" and "impossible"

The bigger "challenge" is not the VABs. It will be long term space flight to other planets because they involve flights lasting months to years.

You are fixating on a single sentence and trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Yep.

And you have to realize the the equipment on Orion is NOTHING like the equipment that was on board Apollo.

Semiconductors produced today are much, much more sensitive to highly ionized subatomic particles.

What was used in the 1960s was not. But it also was a LOT more bulky and much more limited than what we have today.

This is not about exposure to the astronauts. That became very well understood over time.

This is about their craft failing because of the sensitive equipment it will have.

You've been told several times that there is a HUGE difference between the words "challenge" and "impossible"

The bigger "challenge" is not the VABs. It will be long term space flight to other planets because they involve flights lasting months to years.

You are fixating on a single sentence and trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.



There have been dozens of unmanned Moon missions since the Apollo Program, six missions in just the last four years - what could possible be so magical about the Orion's computers that they have these "challenges" that "has to be solved" that none of these other missions had?

No, it is as I've said all along - the challenge is as NASA explicitly says; sending people through the Vann Allen Belts - not computers - and that is why they have indirectly admitted that they have never sent people through the Vann Allen Belts before, and thusly never placed a man on the surface of the Moon as they claimed to do 45-40 years ago.

-MM
edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Did you ever hear of context? The statement of solving the VA belt radiation for people is for Orion. It was already provided in shielding for Apollo, and they only had to provide it for 3 people. Further, there are volumes of info on how it was done.

This out-of-context type of sensationalism is most of the fuel used by those that think we never made it to the moon, and I for one, am absolutely sick of it.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

All right, here we go again (beating the dead horse). I'll start. First with dosage:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are aware of how much energy is in a single eV, yes?

1 electron Volt ( 1 eV) is = to 1.602176565 x 10^−19 Joules

That's 0.0000000000000000001602176565 Joules of energy.

2 GeV is 2 billion electron volts. That's the same as 0.0000000003204 Joules of energy.

A mosquito has 1 TRILLION electron volts ( 1 TeV) of energy.

Ionizing radiation dosage means you need to consider 3 factors:

Distance.
Shielding (if any, and air itself can act as shielding).
TIME.

The important thing to remember here is TIME. How long you or someone is exposed to the ionizing radiation.

Take a look at this chart, link provided to see it better:




Radiation Dosage Chart

1 Sv (sievert) = 1 Joul per kilogram

So, 2 GeV is equal to 3.204 x 10^-10 Jouls per kilogram or 0.0000000003204 sv, or 3.204 nano sv

According to the chart above, a single chest X-ray is 7 mSv, which is 0.007 Sv or:

A LOT more than 2 GeV of energy.

The Apollo astronauts went through this area very quickly. They didn't spend days, weeks or months being exposed to it. Their exposure was between 0.0016 to .0114 Sv or 0.016 to 1.14 rads.

Maximum exposure for US radiation workers is 50 mSv or 0.050 Sv....in other words: they received less than the maximum permitted for a person working at a nuclear power plant.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Read it again very carefully. Read every word this time, don't skip any, like you apparently do when you read posts. It clearly mentions Apollo in the first quote, and clearly mentions that aluminum would absorb half the radiation hitting the ship.


"mostly of aluminum, like an old Apollo command module," says Cucinotta. The spaceship's skin would absorb about half the radiation hitting it.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

How many of those UNMANNED missions had to have computers and life support systems to keep astronauts alive?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Did you ever hear of context? The statement of solving the VA belt radiation for people is for Orion. It was already provided in shielding for Apollo, and they only had to provide it for 3 people. Further, there are volumes of info on how it was done.

This out-of-context type of sensationalism is most of the fuel used by those that think we never made it to the moon, and I for one, am absolutely sick of it.


We have explored the context argument, but none here could explain what is so magical with the Orion spacecrafts computer that entails NASA having "challenges" that "must be solved", as there have been dozens of Moon missions since 1958, and six in the last four years that must have solved these challenges. I can't imagine the Orion's computers being so magical compared to other Moon Mission computers in the last four years that they would have "challenges" that "must be solved".

-MM



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation




I can't imagine the Orion's computers being so magical compared to other Moon Mission computers in the last four years that they would have "challenges" that "must be solved".

With an imagination like that, I'm pretty sure future astronauts are glad that you won't be designing their spacecraft.

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
The Apollo astronauts went through this area very quickly. They didn't spend days, weeks or months being exposed to it. Their exposure was between 0.0016 to .0114 Sv or 0.016 to 1.14 rads.


And what makes you think that Orion has to be exposed by more Vann Allen Belts radiation than Apollo? The video speaks of Vann Allen Belts being the challenge and not other radiation.

-MM



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation



And what makes you think that Orion has to be exposed by more Vann Allen Belts radiation than Apollo?

So soon forgotten the matter of orbital requirements for a Mars mission?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join