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: 26
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Dear mam,

You seem to draw a imaginary connection between a computer's performance statistics and its need for shielding against space radiation, but it is just that; imaginary. Please post any scientific sources for such a purposed connection in this thread, please.

-MM


and you seem to ignore that Orion has up-to-date technology..

micro-processors are much more susceptible to particle radiation than the old Apollo electronics.. the VAB has lots of moving charged electrons.. these electrons can and will affect micro-processors and circuitry.. if these circuitry/electronics are affected on Orion it has potential to be deadly for its occupants.. understand yet why Orion needs testing before it can be considered 'human-rated'??


I have never compared the Orion spacecrafts computer with the Apollo Spacecafts computer. Rather, I have only compared it with the computers of recent Moon missions, as I've mentioned here, here, here, here,here, and here.

-MM
edit on 11-12-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




you claimed being exposed to harmless radiation for weeks or a year doesnt matter.. i posted an article that has harmless levels of radiation, but over the long term IT DOES MATTER..


So you did post it to show that Orion's crew would be exposed to harmful levels of radiation. I just suggested that you did but then you denied it. You keep moving the goal posts. Furthermore, the article you posted disputed that the radiation exposure was that harmful. It didn't draw the conclusion you say it did. I pointed this out to you very clearly.

What a trainwreck.




really you cant work it out by checking the link i posted?? the higher the energy particles have, the further it will penetrate material, click the link i posted and scroll down a bit and you can see how far beta radiation will penetrate air depending on the energy it has..


Penetrate further? They either penetrate(the shielding) or don't. If they don't penetrate they can't be harmful. But ok, what you are suggesting is that radiation outside of the VAB is more harmful than the radiation inside the VAB, which is harmless because of the shielding, according to that NASA pdf.





you asked for sources and i gave it to you.. you can understand that 9000+ rem per month (VAB levels) unshielded is much much higher than 2 rem per month (deep space levels) shielded right??


How is this relevant then. Noone is going through the VAB unshielded.




you just dont get it do you.. 60 rem over 30 months, according to you, is not harmful, but to NASA it is..


Not according to me, but to various sources, including the one you posted.




you claimed duration of a mission shouldnt matter because the radiation is harmless.. but thats your opinion.. according to NASA 60 REM over 30 months is too dangerous regardless of whether you call it harmless or not..


That is not my opinion, I used sources. Your own source was even disputing NASA's claims.

I think I am done with you here.




edit on 11-12-2014 by ConvenientExpert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I am not twisting anything. You are the one cherry picking qoutes.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

I'm not cherry picking anything. The first part was answered several times.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Right, whatever sport.

Care to reply to other comments directed at you?



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Reminder....


Please stay on topic.....

Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

Do NOT reply to this post!
edit on Thu Dec 11 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: johnb

The Belts aren't uniform. They're thicker in some places and thinner in others. Some areas are so dangerous satellites going through them are shut off first.

The route Apollo took was through a thinner portion.


Are you saying they navigated their way through it? They had actual information on where the "thinner" portions were?

Can you provide sources for all the claims you are making?



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

Pick a source.

NASA sent probes up to at least rough map the belts before Apollo.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   


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.


They have been saying this for a while:

2012:


“NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen Radiation belts, and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.”


"humans" not "electronics"



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
NASA would never admit to any such thing. so no.




but i remain on the fence vis-a-vis the whole manned space project conspiracies thing.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Pick a source.


You really feel that the first page of "Van Allen Belt" Google search results is an adequate response to my request of backing up your specific claims.




edit on 11-12-2014 by ConvenientExpert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

The odds are any source I used isn't good enough anyway so why put the effort into it.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
And here is something I have been saying for quite some time:



There is no special radiation shielding being built into the Apollo capsule. To provide really radiation-proof shielding would make the cabin impossibly heavy. On the other hand, the walls of the Apollo capsule itself, ingeniously multi-layered to protect against extremes of heat and cold as well as the possible impact of micrometeorites, should provde good protection against radiation as well. Apparatus and supplies are also arranged around the capsule to provide maximum shielding. And Astronauts caught in a solar flare could get some added protection by turning the most heavily shielded part of the capsule toward the sun.


www.acsu.buffalo.edu...


Who here claimed that Apollo was shielded for radiation? It was shielded for heat and cold just like Gemini was. Nothing special for radiation. We know the hull of Apollo was very thin in certain areas. We know the craft had windows. And this hull that should provide some protection had a caveat:




The Van Allen Belts, they say, are of course, too hot to linger in--so hot that future space stations will have to orbit either below them or above them--but not especially dangerous to moonbound Astronauts who can speed through them in a few minutes' time.


Apollo craft never sped through the belts in a few minutes.
This has been demonstrated using NASA info many threads ago.




For the Apollo flights, and for all future space travel, there remains yet one more all-pervasive worry: radiation. Space is full of radiation--high-frequency waves like X rays and gamma rays, enormously energetic particles such as electrons, protons and a variety of cosmic rays, any of which, on making a direct hit on an atom or molecule in a human cell, can cause damage. On earth, the atmosphere protects us from most of this radiation. It is the space beyond the atmosphere that concerns space doctors. So far, all manned orbiting has taken place on the bare fringe of space, just above the atmosphere. The highest anyone has gone is 203 miles. At that altitude hazards from radiation--mainly from cosmic rays--have turned out to be minimal. In fact, after the Man High balloon flights in 1957 and 1958, scientists concluded that radiation would be no real problem after all. Then, a few months later, the Explorer satellites discovered the now-notorious Van Allen Belts. These vast seas of deadly radiation, consisting mostly of electrons, and protons trapped by the earth's magnetic field, begin several hundred miles out and extend with varying intensity for some 40,000 miles into space.

Beyond the belts there is still cosmic radiation to contend with--and one additional menace: solar-flare radiation. Violent magnetic storms on the sun periodically spew out torrents of enormously energetic particles. This solar-flare activity appears to be cyclical, coming to its peak about every 11 years. The next peak is due to occur at the end of this decade--just when some of our important lunar missions are scheduled. On this score alone, a good many scientists still think our present timetable is foolhardy and are certain that the moon trips will have to be postponed beyond 1970.



These quotes come from:

Pitfalls and perils out there
by Albert Rosenfeld, pages 112-122
LIFE magazine, October 2nd, 1964



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: FoosM

Yes but when they are "debunking" the moon landing conspiracies they say this,


4. Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the radiation belts. According to the US Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) a lethal radiation dosage is 300 Rads in one hour. What is your answer to the 'moon landing hoax' believers? Note: According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days. The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13 Rads in one hour, which is well below the 300 Rads in one hour that is considered to be lethal. Also, this radiation exposure would be for an astronaut outside the spacecraft during the transit through the belts. The radiation shielding inside the spacecraft cuts down the 13 Rads/hour exposure so that it is completely harmless.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

The odds are any source I used isn't good enough anyway so why put the effort into it.


That is such a cop out.

Ok, if you don't want to discuss or back up your own claims I guess we are done here.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ConvenientExpert

There's plenty of backup out there that's easy to find. If you've done even basic research into it you would have found the belts aren't uniform and have been mapped.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

I have never compared the Orion spacecrafts computer with the Apollo Spacecafts computer. Rather, I have only compared it with the computers of recent Moon missions, as I've mentioned here, here, here, here,here, and here.

-MM


how many of those spacecrafts from recent moon missions are human-rated??



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConvenientExpert
So you did post it to show that Orion's crew would be exposed to harmful levels of radiation. I just suggested that you did but then you denied it. You keep moving the goal posts. Furthermore, the article you posted disputed that the radiation exposure was that harmful. It didn't draw the conclusion you say it did. I pointed this out to you very clearly.

What a trainwreck.


it seems like a trainwreck to you because you cant/dont/unwilling to understand the concept of DURATION with regards to radiation exposure.

Duration can turn harmless radiation to dangerous, likewise, duration can turn dangerous radiation to harmless..

in other words, Duration can turn low level radiation (harmless) to dangerous, likewise, Duration can turn high level radiation (dangeorus) to harmless..

in other words, Duration can turn 2 rem/month (harmless) to dangerous when exposed to it for 30 months, likewise, Duration can turn 300 rem/hour (which is deadly when exposed to it for an hour) harmless when exposed to it for 30 seconds.




Penetrate further? They either penetrate(the shielding) or don't. If they don't penetrate they can't be harmful. But ok, what you are suggesting is that radiation outside of the VAB is more harmful than the radiation inside the VAB, which is harmless because of the shielding, according to that NASA pdf.


the energy levels determine how far they can penetrate into or through the shielding.. the higher the energy the more they penetrate, which is why i asked you to check the table from my link..

radiation outside the VAB is harmful over LONG periods of time, they carry more energy but there is very few of them to be a concern for short missions.. ie. the radiation levels from outside of the VAB is very very low..



How is this relevant then. Noone is going through the VAB unshielded.


you can understand the concept that 9000 rem unshielded will be extremely difficult to pratically attenuate to 2 rem right??

if not, than if the VAB had say 9000 rem you believe we can attenuate that radiation to 2 rem practically with shielding.



Not according to me, but to various sources, including the one you posted.


Duration/exposure time is the missing knowledge you need to understand what im talking about..




That is not my opinion, I used sources. Your own source was even disputing NASA's claims.

I think I am done with you here.


you posted an article saying radiation will be attenuated to harmless levels due to shielding.. you then made the conclusion that harmless will remain harmless REGARDLESS OF DURATION..



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: FoosM
They have been saying this for a while:

2012:


“NASA is still seeking to develop technology to safeguard humans for spaceflight into radiation-laden space within and beyond the Van Allen Radiation belts, and the protection provided by our magnetosphere.”


"humans" not "electronics"



source for the quote please.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
testing



ISS orbit just below the Russian Glass Ceiling
Perigee
413 km (257 mi)
Apogee
423 km (263 mi)

• 1964-10-12 - Voskhod 1 - Feoktistov, Komarov, Yegorov - 336 km apogee orbit
• 1965-03-18 - Voskhod 2 - Belyayev, Leonov - 475 km apogee orbit
All employees of NASA.
• 1966-07-18 - Gemini 10 - Collins, Young - 763 km apogee orbit
• 1966-09-14 - Gemini 11 - Conrad, Gordon - 1,372 km apogee orbit
• 1968-12-24 - Apollo 8 - Anders, Borman, Lovell - 378,504 km altitude in first circumlunar flight
• 1970-04-14 - Apollo 13 - Haise, Lovell, Swigert - 401,056 km altitude in emergency return trajectory

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12/11/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/11/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join