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: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No. I'm saying what I've always said. If Mars at its closest approach requires them to go through the thicker parts of the Belts, then they'll go through the thickest part of them. It all depends on orbital mechanics. Orbits aren't perfectly flat, as some people think. So sometimes they'll have to go through the thicker parts of the Belt to get there, and other times they won't have to. So you build your capsule to go through the thicker parts of the belt.

Even if it doesn't have to go through the thicker part of the Belts, it still has to deal with much more radiation than Apollo did. Apollo missions lasted a little over a week. Mars missions will be more like a year.


And just why would NASA chose a trajectory through the most radiated parts of the Vann Allen Belts? And where is your sources for these claims, just one link that is all I'm asking you for.

-MM
edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Like I say at different time's the Radiation density may vary but a electromagnetic bottle may be built to protect the pilot's far lighter than heavy sheilding would be though it may also consume large amount's of power, bear in mind all these belt's really are is field's of radiation cought in the earth's own magnetosphere.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

That rhetoric takes you off your "fence" doesn't it?

You never were on the fence about this issue were you? "Honestly" my arse.

You have clearly demonstrated your bias in this thread, as well as your ineptitude by arguing about the shielding of an oxygen tank. And as others have repeatedly pointed out to you, you are taking the comments made by the NASA engineer out of context.

Writing a passage in bold text, yeah it totally makes you right? Not.

Moon hoax = delusion for the deluded.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because the idea is to launch your mission when it requires the least amount of fuel. That means when the target, in this case Mars, is closest.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation


And just why would NASA chose a trajectory through the most radiated parts of the Vann Allen Belts? And where is your sources for these claims, just one link that is all I'm asking you for.

-MM


Why don't you actually be honest?

No source is going to satisfy you, so why bother asking for one?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

That rhetoric takes you off your "fence" doesn't it?

You never were on the fence about this issue were you? "Honestly" my arse.

You have clearly demonstrated your bias in this thread, as well as your ineptitude by arguing about the shielding of an oxygen tank. And as others have repeatedly pointed out to you, you are taking the comments made by the NASA engineer out of context.

Writing a passage in bold text, yeah it totally makes you right? Not.

Moon hoax = delusion for the deluded.


So, I'm not allowed to change my opinion during a thread? That was like 5-6 hours ago and just as many pages, a lot of reasoning has transpired since then, my friend. Also, I did say that I was slightly more a Moon Hoax believer than denier.

Entering a thread with the intent of not changing your mind or beliefs regardless of the discussion content may be how your mind works; my mind, however, is open to ideas and not closed.

-MM
edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Nah, I don't buy that rubbish.

Intellectual dishonesty.

Your mind is certainly not open, and you're not fooling anybody here?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation


And just why would NASA chose a trajectory through the most radiated parts of the Vann Allen Belts? And where is your sources for these claims, just one link that is all I'm asking you for.

-MM


Why don't you actually be honest?

No source is going to satisfy you, so why bother asking for one?


If I am required to source all my claims, then why should not others? And, you don't know me well enough to boldly claim that you know what satisfy me or not.

-MM
edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Nah, I don't buy that rubbish.

Intellectual dishonesty.

Your mind is certainly not open, and you're not fooling anybody here?



You don't know what you are talking about.

-MM
edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Because the idea is to launch your mission when it requires the least amount of fuel. That means when the target, in this case Mars, is closest.


Sill, I would like you to find a source for your claims that Orion has to go through the more radiated parts of the Vann Allen Belts - and you still have not provided it to me after requesting this for many pages of this thread.

-MM

edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Anybody who reads this thread from start to finish will know exactly what I'm talking about.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Anybody who reads this thread from start to finish will know exactly what I'm talking about.



So, in addition to knowing me by just reading the thread, you now also claim to know what everyone that reads this thread thinks too? Bold claims indeed.

-MM

edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

*yawn*

Bold indeed.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It's not just that being tested. They're also testing the overall radiation exposure limits in Orion. Currently they can only stay in space beyond the Van Allen Belt for 150 days. A Mars mission will take something like 500 days. By going into the Belts on test flights they not only test how it withstands going through the Belts, when they have to, but exposes them to a dose of radiation that they would see on a long term mission, in a short time frame. That lets them see how the electronics would last, as well as what kind of exposures the astronauts will see.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Like I say at different time's the Radiation density may vary but a electromagnetic bottle may be built to protect the pilot's far lighter than heavy sheilding would be though it may also consume large amount's of power, bear in mind all these belt's really are is field's of radiation cought in the earth's own magnetosphere.


I'm not questioning the radiation varying in the different parts of the Vann Allen Belts, I'm questioning the claim that the Orion spacecraft must take a more dangerous trajectory than the manned Apollo Missions.

-MM



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
Yes, it's not easy to find a lot of information about the outer shell of the Command Module that the three Apollo astronauts rode in. The document that you've quoted doesn't provide it either. Your own quote there says

A cutaway view of ths Apollo Service Module is shown in Fig. 3. The shell is composed of 1-in. thick honeycomb panels.

(Bolding mine.)
Two points: the SM is not the same as the CM. The astronauts were not in the SM. It was physically impossible for them to be in it. They had no access to it.

Secondly, the outer shell of the SM was an inch thick. The part you quoted says so. The honeycomb panels were used for a combination of lightness and strength.

The web-stringer beams, whose thickness you highlighted in bold, are not part of the outer shell of the SM, but they were attached to it. It tells you in your own quote what they were for. And again, their thickness has nothing to do with the shell thickness of the Command Module.

Your second source is about the Lunar Module, not the Command Module. It even tells us that at the very top of the page you linked to, where is says in nice big print "The Saturn/Apollo Stack - Lunar Module". In case you missed the article's heading and also didn't notice the multiple references to Lunar Module or LM in the first few paragraphs (and onwards) it should still have been obvious to you that it wasn't about the CM, if only from the fact that they refer to the LM being designed to hold two crew, whereas the CM was built for three. So yet again, your source does not relate to the design or construction of the CM, which is what the Apollo Moon Mission crews rode in all the way to the Moon and back. (Bar 13's, where they had to use the LM as a "lifeboat" for much of it.)

So, that's three sources you've now used to try and support your argument that the main spacecraft for the astronauts -- namely the Command Module -- did not have an outer skin / shell thick enough to protect the astronauts. Not one of your three sources is even about the Apollo Command Module.

Here's some information:

The Command Module that was the three Apollo astronauts' primary "home" for much of their journey was double-shelled. The inner one, which was pressurized, was made from aluminum honeycomb sandwiched between aluminum alloy sheets. Then there was a layer of insulation over the outer al. alloy shell layer, then on top of that there was the outer shell, which was made of stainless-steel honeycomb between stainless steel sheets. Then there was the layer of ablative material on top of that.

So:
inner layer -- aluminum alloy sheet
next layer -- aluminum honeycomb
next layer -- aluminum alloy sheet
next layer -- insulation [Q felt fibrous type)
next layer -- stainless-steel sheet
next layer -- stainless-steel honeycomb
next layer -- stainless-steel sheet
final layer -- ablative material.

That's how they built every CM, certainly in the Block II - types that were used for the Moon missions. Multiple layers, and not just aluminum. Extremely robust and quite adequate to the task.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

It's not MUST take, it's MAY BE REQUIRED to take, as well as CERTAINLY be exposed to more radiation than Apollo ever was.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I'm not yawning.

I'm warning.

Stay On Topic. Discuss The Topic.

Not Each Other.

Clear?



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Like I say at different time's the Radiation density may vary but a electromagnetic bottle may be built to protect the pilot's far lighter than heavy sheilding would be though it may also consume large amount's of power, bear in mind all these belt's really are is field's of radiation cought in the earth's own magnetosphere.


I'm not questioning the radiation varying in the different parts of the Vann Allen Belts, I'm questioning the claim that the Orion spacecraft must take a more dangerous trajectory than the manned Apollo Missions.

-MM


Yes that is a good point, maybe they mean that they are going to use the moon's gravity and the earth's to slingshot it up to velocity and that would mean it haveing to take an oblique angle through the belt's on more than one occasion causing the occupant's to be exposed to more radiation than simply to the moon and back, they perhaps they suspect that beyond the moon's orbit there may be more tenuous belt's as well as once they are outside the beld's losing there natural shielding and exposing the vehicle to direct hard stella radiation.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JustMike

The thickness of the honeycomb is pretty much documentet everywhere, but not the thickness of the aluminum skin that covered the honeycomb is what is really interesting. It is reasonable to believe that it is not considerable thicker than in other parts of the spacecraft, most references says it is 0.020 inches thick.

Still, the point here is that it is not me that is saying the Vann Allen Belts radiation is a problem, it is NASA in my OP. So, we're not really discussing if Apollo was sufficiently shielded from radiation are we, or?

-MM

edit on 29-11-2014 by MerkabaMeditation because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join