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.
originally posted by: choos
guarantee it would succeed??? so using heritage technology would 100% guarantee success of anything?? like say if i took the wright brothers technology as well as some v-2 heritage rocket technology.. if i slap them together i will guarantee a fighter aircraft better than an F15?? is that your point??
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
Blah blah blah...
Still waiting for you to provide any evidence, any evidence at all, that:
a) Apollo astronauts would have, and did, receive a fatal dose of any kind of radiation during any of their missions. You have Soviet, American, Japanese, Indian, European and Chinese data to go at. Asked several times, still waiting.
b) The LM could not have landed on the moon.
Would be good if you could admit you were hopelessly wrong about the LM being untested too.
originally posted by: turbonium1
You want me to explain your own source, in other words?
The main problem is that you've tried to cherry-pick a comment out of the document, because you thought it would support your argument. I simply pointed out that because it refers to "current technology", we can rule out old, Apollo technology.
What is so different about shielding technology today, compared to the Apollo-era?
Take a look through these same documents, which discuss the issue. Shielding technology is ever-changing, and will keep changing, and evolving, for years to come.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you about the problems with aluminum shielding in deep space. I've cited the documents repeatedly, and quoted the documents over and over. This alone is one of the differences in shielding between the Apollo-era and today.
This quote is at the very end of the document. The rest of the document needs to be looked at, so we know what they mean by "enabling technology", "current technology", and "revolutionary technology".
In fact, the document never explains what "current technology" means, or what "adequate" means in relation to it.
The paper doesn't discuss it at all.
We have gone back and forth over the issue of short-term and long-term missions, in deep space.
I've found a quote in the same document, in fact, from the abstract on page one, which confirms what I've told you...
"Exposure from the hazards of severe space radiation in deep space and/or long duration missions is a critical design constraint and a potential ‘show stopper.’ Thus, protection from the hazards of severe space radiation is of paramount importance to the agency’s vision."
..deep space missions, and/or long duration missions..
Which means ANY and ALL deep space missions, short or long duration. As well as ANY and ALL long duration missions, whether in deep space, or not.
Do you understand this, finally?
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, you are combining 'heritage' technologies, which is not what I am saying whatsoever.
I'm talking about ONE 'heritage' technology, like Apollo's, nothing else pushed in...
That should have guaranteed a (supposed) 'return' to the moon, because they were told to use the very same Apollo technology which (supposedly) worked 40 years ago.
NASA was trying to push in other technologies, 'more advanced' technologies. Mixing them in with the Apollo technology provided convenient excuses for failing to 'return' to the moon by 2020.
It is idiotic.
Many replicas of the Wright Brothers plane have been built, using the same technology and materials which were used to build the original. Like the original, they are capable of flight, and have flown.
Let's say it was the only plane ever built. Over a century later, we want to build another plane, capable of flight.
We have no other goal, except to build a plane which can fly, just like the Wright Brothers plane did long ago.
The Wright Brothers technology, as 'heritage' technology, was going to be used in building our new plane.
We ask a contractor to build it.
The contractor says he can do it, because we have the same materials, and the same technology, proven to work in 1903.
A few months later, the contractor says there were unforeseen problems, and he needs another 500K to finish building the plane.
Within a few weeks, he comes back and says he needs even more money. We don't give it to him, because he will quickly spend it, and ask us for more money, over and over again.
We ask the contractor why he failed to build the plane, with all that money, and using the exact same materials, and the same proven technology...
The contractor finally admitted to us that he did NOT use all the same technology. He tried to mix in 'more advanced' technologies, with the original technology
NOBODY asked the contractor to try incorporating other materials, or technologies, to build the plane. It doesn't matter how advanced it is over the original, it is not needed to build our plane.
The whole point of using the exact same, original, 'heritage' technology, is that we know it is guaranteed to work again.
There are NO EXCUSES. Adding technologies is an excuse. No technologies were required, other than the original proven technology.
Of course, if you used the exact same technology, and it didn't work, that means it NEVER worked in the first place.
Just like Apollo...
originally posted by: turbonium1
The term 'deep space' refers to anywhere beyond Earth orbit
originally posted by: turbonium1
Nobody in the Apollo-era knew that aluminum made radiation worse than before, within deep space.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'll say it again: Apollo 5, Apollo 9, Apollo 10.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Do some reading - ignoring posts that prove you wrong doesn't help you in any way, and you could even answer my simple question: do you have any proof that the LM was incapable of doing the job it was designed for?
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
The fact is that the engines were tested on the ground during development - see if you find the important words in this article:
www.collectspace.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
and has even been fired recently:
www.flightglobal.com...
originally posted by: choos
cherry picking?? says the guy who ignores ALL the radiation dosage data in the article because it shows that 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within prescribed limits.
yea like how they are still using aluminium on their spacecrafts like the ISS and Orion. imagine that.. during the Apollo era they used aluminium. and for the Orion they used aluminium.
you have cherry picked quotes that you think support yourself.. whereas the entire article suggests 2 weeks exposed to GCR using aluminium shielding is well within ANY prescribed limits..
and what you are describing isnt the difference between apollo era shielding and today.. thats a cop out excuse which makes zero sense. because Apollo era shielding and today shielding are the same material.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You denied that the LM was tested, I've shown you it was.
Your refusal to accept that this happened is not my problem, the fact is that the LM was tested, there are photographs and film of it being tested, and those photographs and film can be verified as being genuine even if it is just by simply looking at the clouds in the background.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
So you're now saying that this report, which you keep referring to as the one that supports your radiation fallacy, is incorrect?
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
So film footage and photographs of an ascent module operating in Earth orbit against a verifiably genuine backdrop of Earth is not proof that the ascent module worked? Footage and photographs taken from the lunar module of the command module against a verifiably genuine Earth backdrop is proof that the lunar module didn't film the command module in Earth orbit?
Two spacecraft tracked separately from the ground by a large number of ships and tracking stations? That supplied data to the ground?
Proof of something happening isn't proof?
Riiiiight.