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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 148
29
<< 145  146  147    149  150  151 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   


You get about the same amount of x rays and gamma rays in low earth orbit as you do in lunar orbit. Obviously the space station is not made of thick lead,

That is a big no no, you get low particle fluxes in earths orbit simply due to the fact that earth has a strong magnetic field, most of the particles are
deflected unlike the moon where the magnetic field offers weak resistance, almost none.





but it is manned by astronauts who stay up for months at a time.

Yes, but not outside the barier of the magnetosfere.




You also haven't established the flux of neutron radiation on the lunar surface,let alone the cumulative flux.

You are talking about 2 difrent things, gamma rays and neutron reaction, in other words small nuclear reactions, they are present on the moon in bolth cases.





impossible. According to this, lunar neutron radiation only makes up 20% of the total effective dose
, at most.


I'm not taking about the small nuclear reactions, in a nuclear explosion you get that as a first event, plain and simple that is the event of a nuke going off. Radiation can come from alpha, beta, neutron and gamma.

In this case you do not have neutron particles smashing in to the moon, you got protons, about 75 procent of GCR traveling in space are protons,
once they smash in to the moon surface they generate nuclear reactions and gamma rays.



Worthy of consideration for long term stays in order to minimize the dose, but hardly "lethal."

They should of been incapacitated, you got all sort of radiation , X rays, miniature nukes going off at your feet in the form of neutron reactions, gamma rays penetrating deep in to the astronauts suits that offered no protection to gamma radiation, particles hiting directly from above.
The moon is a radiation spunge budy, the Apollo adventures are the equivalent of peter pan in wonder land, it's total fiction.

When you go at the doctor to take an x ray they put a led shield on you and then if you want to take another you have to wait a few months, and it only lasts a few seconds, not to talk about that particles from the particle accelerators are weak compared to the real GCR that travels in space that travel near speed of light and are highly charged, something you won't find in a particle accelerator because they can't replicate the original, they can only create similar particles that are in nature inferior .

In the mean time while I colect material from my computer to make a poem on this issue why don't you take a look at the moon because this is what it really is.





[edit on 19-2-2008 by pepsi78]




posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by xion329alpha
 


that's funny. please explain then why amatuer ham radio enthusiasts who were listening in to the apollo 11 transmissions had to point their equipment at the moonto pick it up ?

Yea or point it to a satelite in orbit that was on the moon's path.
If I have a sat dish I could point it at the moon and recive international television programs.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
pepsi

did you ever find that indpendenty verified evidence of the unmanned probe that was big enough to bring back big muley ?


Big muley could of been a rock placed at the end of a particle cannon and then bombarded nicely with particles to resemble a radioactive rock with nice little holes in it for all I know. Why do you insist on big muley so much? it's not like a total enlightment that resolves the moon hoax theory.


[edit on 19-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


You get about the same amount of x rays and gamma rays in low earth orbit as you do in lunar orbit. Obviously the space station is not made of thick lead,

That is a big no no, you get low particle fluxes in earths orbit simply due to the fact that earth has a strong magnetic field, most of the particles are
deflected unlike the moon where the magnetic field offers weak resistance, almost none.


Wrong, all wrong. You do not get lower amounts of X rays and Gamma rays due to the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation sources AT ALL. The magnetosphere only offers protection against particle radiation, which as I pointed out already many times, was shielded against by the command module's construction, and the flux of which is not lethal on the moon's surface for the time periods spent there.



Yes, but not outside the barier of the magnetosfere.

Once again, the magnetosphere does NOTHING to protect against x rays or gamma rays, which you claim are lethal.



You are talking about 2 difrent things, gamma rays and neutron reaction, in other words small nuclear reactions, they are present on the moon in bolth cases.

You apparently haven't bothered to pay attention to the reason WHY i'm talking about two different things here; it's deliberate and for a good reason. Modern manned spaceflight proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that x rays, gamma rays, and any other forms of EM radiation do not even begin to approach lethal levels in the earth-moon system. Gamma rays are irrelevant and I already showed that neutron radiation is nothing to worry about.






impossible. According to this, lunar neutron radiation only makes up 20% of the total effective dose, at most.


In this case you do not have neutron particles smashing in to the moon, you got protons, about 75 procent of GCR traveling in space are protons,
once they smash in to the moon surface they generate nuclear reactions and gamma rays.

The radiation generated by "protons smashing into the moon's surface" is only a small fraction of the total dose which was never expected to be lethal, that's the point.




Worthy of consideration for long term stays in order to minimize the dose, but hardly "lethal."

They should of been incapacitated, you got all sort of radiation , X rays, miniature nukes going off at your feet in the form of neutron reactions, gamma rays penetrating deep in to the astronauts suits that offered no protection to gamma radiation, particles hiting directly from above.

Care to prove your statement that the energy being released by the moon's surface is equivalent to a "miniature nuke"? That's absolutely false. If you cared to look it up in a real scientific journal you'd see the calculated amount of radiation coming from the lunar surface, which is primarily neutron, isn't lethal at all. The ionizing radiation env. on the moon.
x rays are the same for apollo as they are for iss, it's not that bad.


When you go at the doctor to take an x ray they put a led shield on you and then if you want to take another you have to wait a few months, and it only lasts a few seconds, not to talk about that particles from the particle accelerators are weak compared to the real GCR that travels in space that travel near speed of light and are highly charged

Oh brother, do you have any clue as to how the actual # of protons from GCRs is? The charge is irrelevant unless you get a substantial # of actual particles, in other words, flux. These are very distant events and very little actually reaches us. Also, the sun's heliosphere offers protection against GCRs. GCRs can penetrate earth's magnetic field quite easily because of their speed and are attributable to lower atmospheric ionization. Whereas the heliosphere is quite large and capable of drastically effecting the GCR flux, the earth's magnetosphere is much smaller and has much less time to effect these highly charged particles. Therefore, if GCRs were cause for concern, the crew of the ISS should be dead. Secondary "mini nuke reactions" occur in earth's atmosphere and secondary particles DO reach the surface. Therefore, according to your logic, we should all be dead.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   


Wrong, all wrong. You do not get lower amounts of X rays and Gamma rays due to the magnetosphere. The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation sources AT ALL. The magnetosphere only offers protection against particle radiation


I think we are not on the same line, we are talking here about GCR, you keep changing the subject or do not know a great deal about radiation.

You are wrong , and I'm going to explain why.

Wrong
There is no particle radiation, as in "particle radiation" there is gamma radiation generated by protons, and x-ray radiation generated by electrons, electrons and prtotons are the galactic cosmic particles.
Protons also cause neutron reactions on impact with the moon's surface.




The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation sources AT ALL. The magnetosphere only offers protection against particle radiation,


Wrong again.
There is no electro magnetic radiation as in one tipe of radiation if you are talking about electro magnetic radiation, there is the electro magnetic radiation family type , gamma and x-rays are part of the electro magnetic family.

Why you are wrong.

There are 3 genders of particles but all in majority protons and electrons.

There are the solar particles comming from our sun,there are particles coming from the helypause, and there are the GCR galactic cosmic particles coming from our galaxy but all of them are protons and electrons in majority.

EM as in gamma rays x-rays are low in fux in our solar sitem in general as in pure form with out a carier, unless the sun generates a storm. The carier being the cosmic particles, if you would of paid atention to the link posted by me it says the sun is quiet in gamma rays in a relaxed stage, most of the time there are no gamma bursts comming from the sun unless there is a storm on the sun.

When there is no intense sun explosions to have a solar storm the main suplier of EM radiation are the cosmic particles, as in travel - colide - produce EM radiation , EM radiation meaning Gamma and X ray.

Since the particles them selfs are not in pure form of gamma and x-ray radiation they must colide first to produce such radiation.
You do not hava a big flux of EM types in earth's orbit because there is no impact, the magnetic field deflects most of the particles.




Once again, the magnetosphere does NOTHING to protect against x rays or gamma rays, which you claim are lethal.

I hope you understand the procces now.
X rays and gamma rays as in pure form traveling in our solar sistem has a weak flux in general, an exception is the solar storm, that is why they do not go up on such events.




You apparently haven't bothered to pay attention to the reason WHY i'm talking about two different things here; it's deliberate and for a good reason. Modern manned spaceflight proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that x rays, gamma rays, and any other forms of EM radiation do not even begin to approach lethal levels in the earth-moon system.


It does, and the main suplier is the GCR and not gamma or x-rays traveling in space in pure form.
I debated here early on this thread and we came to the collusion of
4 rems radiation level, what I did not add is that radiation is an cumulative factor meaning if you were exposed to 4 units of rem and the same level of radiation exposure is present it would add up, by the end of the day in best case scenario for you, you would begin to puke and roll over , either way you would be incapacitated, dead or alive.






Gamma rays are irrelevant and I already showed that neutron radiation is nothing to worry about.


I sugest you read what type of radiation gamma is, and what level of penetration it has, and then come and state your conclusion with out making blind statents.



Care to prove your statement that the energy being released by the moon's surface is equivalent to a "miniature nuke"?


Sure there are small nuclear reactions.

science.nasa.gov...


When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little "nuclear reactions" that release "yet more radiation" in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is "radioactive!"

Not less but more radiation.
Nasa does not even specify that gamma rays are generated and have an efect of bouncing off the heavy atoms on the moon hiting in all directions.
Nasa does not even know what to expect.



That's absolutely false. If you cared to look it up in a real scientific journal you'd see the calculated amount of radiation coming from the lunar surface, which is primarily neutron, isn't lethal at all.

First of all your article claims no such thing.


Abstract
The ionizing radiation environment on the moon that contributes to the radiation hazard for astronauts consists of galactic cosmic rays, solar energetic particles and albedo particles (mainly neutrons), from the lunar surface. We present calculations of the effective dose rate due to lunar albedo neutrons. These calculations are based on GEANT4 Monte Carlo simulations of albedo neutron production on the moon. We compare our results with the Lunar Prospector (LP) fast neutron data. We also compare the effective dose rate from lunar albedo neutrons to that from galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles.



All tho the neutron radiation is a cause for concern, my main concern are the gamma rays.
Just like in a nuclear explosion, you have at first neutron radiation right after the chain reaction, then the most worry factors as a separate event are the gamma rays that are generated from the nuclear explosion, in fact the most dangeros event.



x rays are the same for apollo as they are for iss, it's not that bad.

The ISS is within the boudry of the magnetic field, you have no idea at all of how the radiation travels in space.



Oh brother, do you have any clue as to how the actual # of protons from GCRs is?

I know what protons are, I've been studiing material for the last year with an itense tendency, and I think I know more than you.







These are very distant events and very little actually reaches us. Also, the sun's heliosphere offers protection against GCRs.

Those are the 3rd tipe of particles.The sun only offers protection from GCR only when solar storms ocur, but it amplifies the particles coming from the sun, the solar particles.



GCRs can penetrate earth's magnetic field quite easily because of their speed and are attributable to lower atmospheric ionization.

Only the ones with a very high energy will penetrate, those in the range of 500 MEV are

If you still insist ok , this should take care of this.

The earth is protected by the magnetic field in general.


Cosmic rays are a type of radiation that comes from space. Cosmic rays aren't really "rays". T hey are particles (mostly protons) with very high energies. Cosmic rays come from various places, including the Sun, supernova explosions, and extremely distant sources such as radio galaxies and quasars. Because of their high energy, this type of particle radiation can be dangerous to people and to machines. On Earth we are mostly shielded from them by our planet's magnetic field and atmosphere.




The sun is shielded from this particles also by it's magnetic field.
www.phy.mtu.edu...


The Sun is shielded from these particles by its magnetic field. EGRET's gamma-ray vision is not sharp enough to resolve a lunar disk or any surface features but its sensitivity reveals the bright gamma-ray moonglow against a background of gamma rays from our Milky Way galaxy, gamma-ray quasars and some still mysterious unidentified sources.


The moon almost has no magnetic field and no atmosfere.


1 Any way, you wil never have the flux that is outsite the magnetorsfere.
2 You need the protons to colide with heavy atoms in order to get an efect of radiation, the moon surface is perfect for such event the ISS is not.
3 The ones that do make it past the magnetic field react in the atmosfere
most of the particles that make it are pushed by the magnetic field over north pole, as a result you get the aurora efect, itn most cases that is why comercial airlines avoid flying over north pole because there is a biger flux, so the ISS is safe due to the magnetic field ,since it defelcts particles
and afects the tajectory of the ones that do make it.

I have found yor research in this field most lacking.
Mixing up radiation types, and cosmic particles, mixing up the particles comming from the helipause with the GCR.
If you want to try be my guest, I did my homework over a period of one year in this field.
I did not know that you did not read the entire thread , so I asumed you knew about it and did not bother to bring this up again so we could talk about other influencing factors of the moon mission, but since you didin't well , I'll bring it up again in the comming posts, I have much to post on this subject.


[edit on 19-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

I think we are not on the same line, we are talking here about GCR, you keep changing the subject or do not know a great deal about radiation.

You are wrong , and I'm going to explain why.

Wrong
There is no particle radiation, as in "particle radiation" there is gamma radiation generated by protons, and x-ray radiation generated by electrons, electrons and prtotons are the galactic cosmic particles.
Protons also cause neutron reactions on impact with the moon's surface.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you know nothing about radiation or how to shield against it. There is no particle radiation? What the heck do you call charged protons and electrons traveling freely through space then? That's particle radiation buddy, and it does NOT just give off x-rays and gamma-rays at random. If you're talking about EM radiation given off when it collides with a surface, yes, that happens most when it strikes an element with a high atomic number. It would have been helpful earlier if you had specified where you feared these "deadly" x-rays were coming from. Tell me, what is the atomic number for aluminum? If you look it up you'll find aluminum is a very light metal, which is why it was extensively used for the skin of the apollo spacecraft, it minimizes any secondary EM radiation generated on contact with GCR particles. This is why you DO NOT use lead for shielding. Lead is a horrible shield, it generates tremendous EM backscatter that takes 6 feet to shield what lightweight fibrous material can shield in an inch or two without generating significant EM backscatter. By the way, what kind of radiation IS neutron radiation? Particle, it just happens to be a neutral particle. Guess what blocks particles without generating tons of EM backscatter? Fibrous material. Like spacesuits and skin.



The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation sources AT ALL. The magnetosphere only offers protection against particle radiation,




Wrong again.
There is no electro magnetic radiation as in one tipe of radiation if you are talking about electro magnetic radiation, there is the electro magnetic radiation family type , gamma and x-rays are part of the electro magnetic family.

I'm sorry, are you just not reading my responses before replying? I clearly stated that the magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation at all. EM = electromagnetic, which means gamma rays and x-rays, yes. Gamma rays and X-rays are not deflected by the magnetosphere, so you are wrong, not me.


Why you are wrong.

There are 3 genders of particles but all in majority protons and electrons.

Now you change subjects to particle radiation. Did I say the magnetosphere doesn't affect particle radiation? NO. I said it doesn't affect EM radiation. EM radiation does not consist of protons or electrons. You're totally off subject here.


There are the solar particles comming from our sun,there are particles coming from the helypause, and there are the GCR galactic cosmic particles coming from our galaxy but all of them are protons and electrons in majority.

And guess what, the heliosphere helps block GCRs too. But once again, this is not EM radiation. The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation, whether it comes from the sun, gamma ray bursts, or whatever.


EM as in gamma rays x-rays are low in fux in our solar sitem in general as in pure form with out a carier, unless the sun generates a storm. The carier being the cosmic particles, if you would of paid atention to the link posted by me it says the sun is quiet in gamma rays in a relaxed stage, most of the time there are no gamma bursts comming from the sun unless there is a storm on the sun.

Oh contrair, there are GRBs that occur every day, just from distant sources, just like your dreaded GCRs. And the sun is constantly putting out "deadly" x-rays from the corona. Now all of the sudden you're concerned about flux whereas you ignore it when it comes to GCRs. That's really funny, selective logic there.



When there is no intense sun explosions to have a solar storm the main suplier of EM radiation are the cosmic particles, as in travel - colide - produce EM radiation , EM radiation meaning Gamma and X ray.

What you're talking about is backscatter, you never mentioned this before. Luckily for the apollo astronauts, the designers of the spacecraft did not try to use lead to shield them. As mentioned before, lead is a heavy metal, meaning MORE gamma rays and MORE x-rays, not less. If you use thin light metals in combination with fibrous materials, guess what? No deadly backscatter!


Since the particles them selfs are not in pure form of gamma and x-ray radiation they must colide first to produce such radiation.
You do not hava a big flux of EM types in earth's orbit because there is no impact, the magnetic field deflects most of the particles.

Once again, only concerned about flux when it suits you. Irritating to say the least. I'm beginning to be convinced that you're not as ignorant of the nature of radiation as you pretend to be. You're only ignorant of the bits that disprove your theory. There's no big flux ANYWHERE because there just aren't enough GCRs to generate the kind of lethal levels of radiation you're talking about, especially when very thin aluminum and fibrous shielding is involved. If the magnetosphere were truly essential to the protection of crews on orbit, they should all be irradiated to vegetables every time there's a disruption in the magnetosphere due to solar activity.
www.cosis.net...
www.copernicus.org...
Interestingly, the higher the energy the proton has, the more likely it is to penetrate the magnetosphere and make it to the atmosphere. This means that the ISS is exposed to the highest energy protons out there, particularly when the sun is more active, without any ill effects...


I sugest you read what type of radiation gamma is, and what level of penetration it has, and then come and state your conclusion with out making blind statents.

I suggest you pay attention to the fact that I know what it is and that it penetrates the magnetosphere just fine.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   


Only the ones with a very high energy will penetrate, those in the range of 500 MEV are

If you still insist ok , this should take care of this.

The earth is protected by the magnetic field in general.

Seeing as how the highest energy particles are the only ones you should concerned about since fibrous material will shield the lower energy particles, and seeing as how these high energy "deadly" GCRs don't harm the crew of the ISS or space shuttle it proves that GCRs are nothing to worry about even outside the magnetosphere. Additionally, the magnetosphere transmits low energy GCRs below 500 MeVs during periods of increased solar activity, and the ISS has weathered it just fine. Additionally, weren't you the one that was complaining earlier about how the apollo astronauts couldn't possibly survive very high MeV particle radiation? Now you're complaining about very low MeV particle radiation? Seems like you change the story to fit the person you're debating. Maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else though, I'll give the benefit of a doubt until I find otherwise.



Cosmic rays are a type of radiation that comes from space. Cosmic rays aren't really "rays". T hey are particles (mostly protons) with very high energies. Cosmic rays come from various places, including the Sun, supernova explosions, and extremely distant sources such as radio galaxies and quasars. Because of their high energy, this type of particle radiation can be dangerous to people and to machines. On Earth we are mostly shielded from them by our planet's magnetic field and atmosphere.

So because it "can be" if you're an idiot and use lead shielding or no shielding at all, it "must have been deadly" for apollo, is that your logic here? Just because falling out of an airplane "can be" deadly doesn't mean you'll automatically die everytime you do it if you wear a parachute.






The sun is shielded from this particles also by it's magnetic field.
www.phy.mtu.edu...



The Sun is shielded from these particles by its magnetic field. EGRET's gamma-ray vision is not sharp enough to resolve a lunar disk or any surface features but its sensitivity reveals the bright gamma-ray moonglow against a background of gamma rays from our Milky Way galaxy, gamma-ray quasars and some still mysterious unidentified sources.

Funny, I recall pointing this out a few posts ago, talking about the heliosphere reducing GCRs in general. The sun's magnetic field goes WAY beyond our orbit, you know that right?




The moon almost has no magnetic field and no atmosfere.


1 Any way, you wil never have the flux that is outsite the magnetorsfere.

Correction, you will never have "quite" the flux that is outside the magnetosphere, but since the magnetosphere can be disrupted for a couple days at a time, you CAN have very similar fluxes, especially for particles with MeVs above 500, which is the only thing you should worry about when you use proper shielding (NOT lead).


2 You need the protons to colide with heavy atoms in order to get an efect of radiation, the moon surface is perfect for such event the ISS is not.

LMAO, now THIS is funny. You just admitted that spacecraft made of light metals are poor at producing backscatter. No joke, so right off the bat you've just admitted that the missions up to and including apollo 10 are entirely plausible.


3 The ones that do make it past the magnetic field react in the atmosfere
most of the particles that make it are pushed by the magnetic field over north pole, as a result you get the aurora efect, itn most cases that is why comercial airlines avoid flying over north pole because there is a biger flux, so the ISS is safe due to the magnetic field ,since it defelcts particles
and afects the tajectory of the ones that do make it.

Wrong, the ISS is not safe. The ISS's orbital inclination is 51 degrees. That's high enough to take it right over canada and be seen from alaska, in other words, aurora territory. Your own point just proved you wrong.


I have found yor research in this field most lacking.

lol, I was about to say the same of you.


Mixing up radiation types, and cosmic particles, mixing up the particles comming from the helipause with the GCR.

What are you talking about? I haven't mixed up anything, you're the one that keeps jumping randomly from category to category, routinely mentioning gamma rays in the same breath as particle radiation. You routinely pretend to be ignorant of the interplanetary flux of these particles while only hammering the flux levels at low earth orbit. You're still completely ignorant of how to properly shield against particle radiation. I never even mentioned the word heliopause until now, you said it, not me. You're selectively ignorant about every aspect of radiation.


If you want to try be my guest, I did my homework over a period of one year in this field.

Don't condescend to me, I've been studying apollo for at least ten years now and I work with radiation and have to be certified annually on how to properly handle and contain it.


I did not know that you did not read the entire thread , so I asumed you knew about it and did not bother to bring this up again so we could talk about other influencing factors of the moon mission, but since you didin't well , I'll bring it up again in the comming posts, I have much to post on this subject.

You only seem to be interested in drawing attention to selective parts of the subject while ignoring other critical aspects. Your entire game seems to be one big diversion designed to lure the laymen into believing your theory. It doesn't pass my smell test though.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
As I thought I remembered Pepsi, you were the one complaining about how the apollo missions went ahead despite high "500 MeV particles"



Beside that there was a bigest solar flare of the century, charging the particles within the van alen belts and making them even more dangeros, charging the particles that come from our sun that travel trough out our solar sistem at levels of 500 mev, they decided to go to the moon right after it.


Funny that this is the very kind of particle radiation that can make it past the van allen belt and affect the space station and shuttle, particularly during high levels of solar activity, yet no ill effects are observed during these much longer missions. Now you're suddenly not concerned about that since I didn't fall for the "big scary number of MeVs" trick, now you're suddenly concerned about the opposite?



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I thought it might be interesting to quantify for you Pepsi, just how relatively dim the moon is in gamma rays. That it's brighter than an inactive sun isn't saying much, the sun doesn't emit many gamma rays except during powerful solar events. So how many gamma rays does the moon really give off? The egret image you posted earlier is deceptive; it's a composite of 8 exposures taken over the course of years, it's not just a snapshot of time. In fact, there's no way to tell from the image just what "white" means quantitatively. So let's quantify it.


From the lunar prospector's gamma spectrometer, this graph shows the gamma ray counts over the course of 32 seconds of entire regions of the moon. You're looking at barely more than 10 photons per 32 seconds at the lowest energies coming from these regions. The real big hitters, from cosmic rays hitting heavy elements like iron, have less than 1 count in 32 seconds. That's pretty darn dim, and it's from a satellite orbiting the moon, not just one sitting in earth orbit staring across a vast expanse of space. Bright enough for it to be detectable in a gamma ray telescope, sure, but lethal? Not even close. 22 counts of 1MeVs per minute, or 1320 counts per hour. Multiply by 1.6E-13 to get joules. That's 0.0000000002112 joules per hour. That's equivalent to 0.2112 nGy/hr. The normal background gamma radiation dose for being outside on earth is about 57nGy/hr. Granted, i'm not integrating the entire spectrum here, but I did make the generous assumption that this count rate for the entire region would be the same for each kilogram of tissue if you were standing on the moon. As you can see, this isn't even approaching anything dangerous.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You show me how they faked 1969 footage with people nearly 40 years older. And yes you can call it a documentary because it is not a movie.


Show me where it was debunked, and do not give me an ATS tread link because I am not reading a thread full of posts by people like you.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   


It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you know nothing about radiation or how to shield against it. There is no particle radiation? What the heck do you call charged protons and electrons traveling freely through space then?


There is no particle radiation as in a specific radiation type for all particles.
Protons leave a gamma trace as they travel, that is how they are detected , they are detected with a gamma spectrometer.
Take a look inside the proton , and tell me what do you see in the middle of the particle.







It would have been helpful earlier if you had specified where you feared these "deadly" x-rays were coming from. Tell me, what is the atomic number for aluminum? If you look it up you'll find aluminum is a very light metal, which is why it was extensively used for the skin of the apollo spacecraft it minimizes any secondary EM radiation generated on contact with GCR

First of all please refere to the EM radiation types by specifiing the type of EM, as you are causing confusion.
I explained to you there is no such thing as in "The EM radiation"
You are causing confusion since I do not know what you are refering to, it could be radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, UV light, and even light, then of course it would be silly to insist that light can penetrate aluminium, so what EM type are you refering to?
Each EM type has it's level of penetration.



1 I do not care about x-ray radiation as I consider it not that big of a hazard on the moon , electrons as particles are fewer, the majority being made up by protons.
2 Aluminium offers little protection for gamma rays, so that is a bluf by nassa technicaly speaking, aluminium offers little protection once there are pure forms of EM radiation types.

The only protection aluminium offers is against particles, and that is limited protection, you would have some protection against static particles, or particles with low speeds, particles traveling near speed of light will penetrate the aluminium hull.

Also you are siting inside the LEM on the moon and you got particles hitting the moon and then generating gamma rays that would hit the aluminium hull of the craft it would penetrate with out any problems.



This is why you DO NOT use lead for shielding.

This is insane, aluminium protection for the highest EM type radiation on the spectrum.
Let me amuse my self.
Next time you go to the doctor please tell him you would like to take an x-ray protected only by aluminium


You are confusing particles that are in the Van Alen belts with other high speed particles hitting the moon.
I also have to say that it would not offer protection for the most penetrating EM radiation type located on the spectrum.






Gamma rays and X-rays are not deflected by the magnetosphere, so you are wrong, not me.

Yes such radiation is not deflected, I never stated that the magnetic field deflects such radiation, what I did state is it will deflect particles that cause EM radiation type , big difrence.




Now you change subjects to particle radiation. Did I say the magnetosphere doesn't affect particle radiation?

What particle radiation, what radiation are you talking about?
Please name it, please name your particle radiation.
There are electrons and protons, electrons generate x-rays , protons generate gamma rays and neutron reactions.
When traveling in space such particles will out put such radiation around them leaving a trace so that is how they are detected, with a gamma ray detector or x-ray detector.

Besides that particles cary energy, as in pure energy form, if you like to consider that your "particle radiation" then ok. otherwise I do not know what you are refering to.






NO. I said it doesn't affect EM radiation.

Yes, and I told you that is space in our solar sistem there is a small flux of such radiation unless the sun has gamma bursts.


EM radiation does not consist of protons or electrons. You're totally off subject here.


No, but protons will cause EM types of radiation.
Gamma rays are not made out of protons, but protons will output gamma rays, on colision and also when traveling in small quatities and that is how they are detected.



The magnetosphere does not affect EM radiation, whether it comes from the sun, gamma ray bursts, or whatever.


And I told you it's not a danger any way because big solar flares do not happen everyday to cause important gamma bursts, in the rest of the time it's in a relaxed stage.



Oh contrair, there are GRBs that occur every day, just from distant sources, just like your dreaded GCRs. And the sun is constantly putting out "deadly" x-rays from the corona.

The sun does not output significant amount of such radiation to be a hazard, the sun is not that bright on the gamma spectrometer when it's in a relaxed stage, and that is most of the time, unles there is a important solar storm.



Now all of the sudden you're concerned about flux whereas you ignore it when it comes to GCRs. That's really funny, selective logic there.

I'll just quote you on the rest of your post
There is a big flux, other wise the moon would not be that bright in the spectrum of gamma, it's brighter than the sun, GCR will cause gamma on the moon.
The main source of EM radiation type is suplied by GCR, no impact no significant gamma radiation, and that is why you will never have a big flux in earths orbit.

You are aksing your self why is the moon difrent from the earths orbit and I told you the particles must colide to produce the effect.
1 Since particles are blocked by the magnetic field they do not get a chance to impact the ISS to produce gamma or x-rays, because I do not see what to impact besides the space station to cause such an efect in earth's orbit.
2 Those that make it are deviated by the magnetosphere over north pole.
3 There is nothing to colide with-in earth's orbit to produce such radiation.

There for you would never have important radiation levels of gamma and x-ray in our orbit.

They never went to the moon, if they were their bodyes should be there on the moon in the form of a skeleton coverd in dust.




[edit on 20-2-2008 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You're really getting on my nerves, stop pretending to not know what I'm talking about when I say things like "EM radiation." What do you think I'm talking about? Dear lord why would I be referring to radio waves? Stop trying to infer the most idiotic interpretation of what I'm saying, of course radio waves are irrelevant! I don't buy it for a minute when you claim you don't know what kind of EM radiation I'm referring to, so stop it with these pointless diversion tactics right now. Once again you claim that there's no such thing as particle radiation or EM radiation, but you're absolutely wrong:

There is no particle radiation as in a specific radiation type for all particles.

Wrong. Wikipedia: "Particle radiation is the radiation of energy by means of fast-moving subatomic particles."
That's physics 101 right there.
Now as for what part of the EM spectrum I'm referring to, of course I'm only referring to commonly lethal forms of radiation, the same kind you refer to in the same breath that you talk about particle radiation. Particles have to interact with something before they'll give off EM radiation, so when I'm talking about the magnetosphere not blocking EM radiation of course I'm talking about radiation that is already EM in nature! How hard is that to figure out? Why would you assume that I'm talking about some particle that in the future could hit the spacecraft and cause the matter it interacts with to give off EM radiation like gamma rays and x rays? When I say the magnetosphere does nothing to block EM radiation, I'm talking about photons, not particles, and not the consequences of particles colliding. The fact is, the magnetosphere does not block photons. It does not block X-rays from the corona. The image seen here of the moon reflecting x-ray radiation from the sun shows just how high the proportion is of x-ray light versus x-ray bursts from solar wind particles colliding with the surface.

The GCR density is about 10 to the -9 particles per cubic cm. The solar wind density? About 5 to 10 protons per cubic cm. Now just imagine if you would how many fewer spots you should expect to see on the moon if this were an image of gamma rays coming from the moon because of GCR hits with the same exposure time and equipment (if such were possible). It would be a blank image.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   




Oh contrair, there are GRBs that occur every day, just from distant sources, just like your dreaded GCRs. And the sun is constantly putting out "deadly" x-rays from the corona.



The sun does not output significant amount of such radiation to be a hazard, the sun is not that bright on the gamma spectrometer when it's in a relaxed stage, and that is most of the time, unles there is a important solar storm.

Are you bothering to read what I write? Where did you see me mention gamma rays from the sun?????????? I said GRB, gamma ray bursts, those do not come from the sun. And why do you ignore the sun's constant output of x-ray radiation, yet vastly overstate the importance of GCR hits on the moon?



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   


I'll just quote you on the rest of your post
There is a big flux, other wise the moon would not be that bright in the spectrum of gamma, it's brighter than the sun, GCR will cause gamma on the moon.
The main source of EM radiation type is suplied by GCR, no impact no significant gamma radiation, and that is why you will never have a big flux in earths orbit.

It's not that bright, it doesn't take anything to be brighter than the sun in gamma when it's quiet, so that's not saying anything. You never established what this "big flux" really was, but I have since established precisely how many photons were detected from GCR impacts on the moon and it's pitifully low. Less than one photon in 32 seconds for heavy metal collisions with GCRs. You seem to have ignored that entirely, big surprise. If you look at GOES proton flux monitor you can see the total proton flux right now, whether it comes from the sun or from background GCRs, it's counted. What's the current flux for protons with MeVs > 100 right now? Somewhere between 10-1 and 10-2. GOES is positioned well above the inner van allen belt, mostly unshielded, so where is this deadly flux i'm supposed to see?



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   


2 Aluminium offers little protection for gamma rays, so that is a bluf by nassa technicaly speaking, aluminium offers little protection once there are pure forms of EM radiation types.

Who exactly did you hope to fool with this statement? Me? I'm insulted. Suddenly you seem to have overlooked the fact that in order for there to be high energy gamma rays, GCRs must first collide with a heavy metal. Aluminum is not a heavy metal, it therefore prevents the formation of excessive EM radiation in the first place! This is precisely why thin layers of aluminum are a GREAT choice for spacecraft construction as opposed to lead, without even considering the weight difference. Lead will cause excessive bremmstralung, aluminum will not. The fibrous insulation they used beyond the thin lead skin is even better for blocking particles without causing excessive EM radiation backscatter. Lead is not even desireable, aluminum is great. Yes, you could use 6 feet of lead, but that is the most inefficient worst way to do it. You could simply use thin aluminum for structural strength and fibrous material inside it to prevent the GCRs from becoming high enery gamma rays.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   


1 Since particles are blocked by the magnetic field they do not get a chance to impact the ISS to produce gamma or x-rays, because I do not see what to impact besides the space station to cause such an efect in earth's orbit.
2 Those that make it are deviated by the magnetosphere over north pole.
3 There is nothing to colide with-in earth's orbit to produce such radiation.

High energy particles penetrate the magnetic field and even make it well down into the atmosphere, the higher the energy, the less deflection. ISS has an inclination of 51 degrees, putting right over aurora activity at times, that means it's being bombarded with solar particles that have made it through the magnetosphere, not to mention the much higher energy of GCRs that can get through even EASIER during such periods of solar activity.
ISS going right over aurora activity in the southern hemisphere:

ISS goes right through the southern atlantic anomaly from time to time, that means anything trapped by the belts, including GCR particles, will encounter the station, not to mention those that penetrate the belt. If solar particles can reach the atmosphere at these latitudes, you can bet that higher energy GCRs can do it too.

"The ISS model is now configured for 11A and uses an anisotropic and dynamic geomagnetic transmission and trapped proton models. The ISS 11A is instrumented with both passive and active dosimetric devices. Time resolved measurements have the advantage of isolating trapped proton and galactic cosmic ray components "
International space station: A testbed for experimental and computational dosimetry J.W. Wilson et al

"At the International Space Station, however, the geomagnetic field from the Earth affects the flux of
charged particles at different energies differently. Fig. 1 shows the geomagnetic transmission function at the
ISS (including the shadowing effect from the Earth) as a function of magnetic rigidity, while in deep space the
function is unity by definition as there are no geomagnetic or shadowing effects. Therefore we expect different
sensitivities to the energy in fragmentation cross sections, and these results tell us at what energies nuclear
fragmentation most affects the GCR radiation risk at the ISS."
ntrs.nasa.gov...

""With the active detectors, we can correlate the time the radiation was received with the position of the spacecraft," explains Badhwar. "We can separate out quite reliably when we were in the Anomaly and when we were in the Galactic Cosmic Ray region.” This kind of split makes radiation models derived from such data applicable to interplanetary missions, too. To assess astronaut exposure on a trip to Mars, for example, "we'll just switch off the Van Allen Belt particles,” says Badhwar."
science.nasa.gov...

In short, you're wrong, GCRs DO impact ISS.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Here's the nail in the proverbial coffin.
From
"Evaluation of the flux of CR nuclei inside the magnetosphere"
G. Boella et al

This is a graph showing the abundance of various GCR nuclei (versus protons) at various geomagnetic regions, shown in colors, versus the cosmic abundance, shown as open symbols. As you can plainly see, heavier nuclei are much more abundant in the geomagnetic regions than they are in cosmic abundance. The ISS, as I previously mentioned, goes through the southern atlantic anomaly and encounters some of these particles. The astronauts stay up there for months at a time, passing through the region again and again, soaking up these GCRs and yet they're still alive. Apollo missions lasted for a matter of days, we're talking about twenty times the amount of time spent in space, and multiple passes through the SAA over the course of several consecutive orbits. How much flux are we talking about in the SAA?

"The South Atlantic Anomaly boundary is for 100 MeV protons with flux greater than 100 particles/cm2-sec" -
Radiation and the International Space Station: Recommendations to Reduce Risk (2000)
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA)

There's your big flux, it's bigger in the magnetosphere than it is beyond it, as I showed in the previous graph. ISS hits the SAA on about 50% of its orbits and spends 5-10 mintues within it in each of those orbits. (www.spaceflight.esa.int...)
Say you spend half a year on the space station, not uncommon. About 183 days. 7.5 minutes of half your orbits are spent in the SAA. It's about a 90 minute orbit. That's 12% of half your orbits then. Therefore, you spent 11 days inside the SAA. So apparently, spending one hour every day at those levels for half a year is not dangerous if you're in an aluminum can.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Who exactly did you hope to fool with this statement? Me? I'm insulted. Suddenly you seem to have overlooked the fact that in order for there to be high energy gamma rays, GCRs must first collide with a heavy metal.


Or with the heavy atoms in the moon soil.



Aluminum is not a heavy metal, it therefore prevents the formation of excessive EM radiation in the first place!


I'm not even talking about the space jorney to the moon yet, I'm strictly talking about what happened on the moon.
You did bring this subject in to our conversation. so I quoted you on it on the subject of the discussion, telling you that by hitting the moons soil EM radiation would be generated in the form of gamma and it would penetrate the hull of the craft, as in particles crashing on the moon , generating gamma, and then hitting the craft's hull.
Aluminium offers no important protection to gamma rays.
I aslo stated that particles traveling near speed of light would penetrate the aluminum hull, and that is because you had a thin aluminum hull.
Any way this is irelevaant on who is right, since most of the time the astronauts were outside the LEM exposed to radiation.



This is precisely why thin layers of aluminum are a GREAT choice for spacecraft construction as opposed to lead,

Yea, not when your talking about high energy EM types, protection with aluminium in this case offers no protection, since particles colide with the moon's surface and produce gamma rays and x-rays.


The fibrous insulation they used beyond the thin lead skin is even better for blocking particles without causing excessive EM radiation backscatter.

To bad astronauts were on the moon in the craft, where the soil of the moon did cause such events.



Lead is not even desireable, aluminum is great. Yes, you could use 6 feet of lead, but that is the most inefficient worst way to do it.

You use 6 feet of lead for electro magnetic radiation, it's the only protection for this type of radiation.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   


It's not that bright, it doesn't take anything to be brighter than the sun in gamma when it's quiet, so that's not saying anything. You never established what this "big flux" really was,

True, I will post it for you in the comming posts, I had the flux and all the data last year, if I can't find it in my computer I will search on the forums I post it, and I will post it for you and I will show you that there is a flux enough to incapacitate the astronauts.



but I have since established precisely how many photons were detected from GCR impacts on the moon and it's pitifully low. Less than one photon in 32 seconds for heavy metal collisions with GCRs.

You do not have to have heavy mettals, the particle simply has to colide with other atoms in the moon soil to produce the effect,



You seem to have ignored that entirely, big surprise. If you look at GOES proton flux monitor you can see the total proton flux right now, whether it comes from the sun or from background GCRs, it's counted. What's the current flux for protons with MeVs > 100 right now?

The majority of protons that travel in space have a range of 70- to 100 mev in general, exceptions are the some protons reaching mejurments of GEV



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


For your answer , you will never have a big flux in earth's orbits , the magnetic field deflects a good part of them.
This is silly to insist that the sama particle flux on the moon is present in earth's orbit.




top topics



 
29
<< 145  146  147    149  150  151 >>

log in

join