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.
You missed my point. Joules and Joules/kg are different. You got the info of 10 Joules from one site, and then magicly all of a sudden you have 10 Joules/kg. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
A Joule is a measure of kinetic energy. A Joule/kg is a measure of energy absorbed. Very different things.
Now I suck at math, but the answer I got was 10 Joules of energy, so with your line of thinking that would mean... OMG RADIOACTIVE PICKLES!!!!1!, but clearly that's not the case and thank goodness it's not.
Originally posted by pepsi78
thats how joules are converted per kilogram/gram/milgram .
You cant convert joules in to rad other way.
You take the ten joule and you see how would 10 joules would afect per gram, per kilogram, and so on.
You cant convert simple joules in to radiation with out defining an area an amount.
It's 10 joules=area/amount
hat is how it's done.
10 joules will afect 1 kilogram by
10 joules will afect 1 gram by
and so on,it's the same 10 joules.
Kinetic energy=mass in motion converted to an absortion amount= radiation exposure
That is because the pickles are not radioactive, the 10 joules that are calculated from the cosmic rays are converted to radiation because of the content of the cosmic ray, pickels are not radioactive, proton particles are.
The Earth actually has two radiation belts of different origins. The inner belt, the one discovered by Van Allen's Geiger counter, occupies a COMPACT REGION ABOVE THE EQUATOR (see drawing, which also includes the trajectories of two space probes) and is a by-product of cosmic radiation. It is populated by protons of energies in the 10-100 Mev range, which readily penetrate spacecraft and which can, on prolonged exposure, damage instruments and be a hazard to astronauts. Both manned and unmanned spaceflights tend to stay out of this region.
The outer radiation belt is nowadays seen as part of the plasma trapped in the magnetosphere. The name "radiation belt" is usually applied to the more energetic part of that plasma population, e.g. ions of about 1 Mev of energy (see energy units). The more numerous lower-energy particles are known as the "ring current", since they carry the current responsible for magnetic storms. Most of the ring current energy resides in the ions (typically, with 0.05 MeV) but energetic electrons can also be found.
Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy
That could explain the obvious inconsistencies in the footage and photography
GrandCourtJester
How can you people be so naive? We never got anywhere near the moon. The computer system in the Apollo space craft was no more sophisticated than a pocket calculator.
Oddly, in the years since, even though our technology has become much more sophisiticated, we haven't gone to the moon. The space shuttle only flies in low orbit. For one thing, it's a know scientific fact that you can't fly past the Van Allen belt, without getting fried alive by cosmic rays.
Area 51 is in fact where NASA, in co operation with the CIA, and the NSC, faked the moon launch, as an early "Star Wars/SDI" proto type. The idea was to freak out the commies, by making them beleive that our side had the ultimate strategic advantage! Ever see a film called "Capricorn 1"?
GrandCourtJester
How can you people be so naive? We never got anywhere near the moon. The computer system in the Apollo space craft was no more sophisticated than a pocket calculator.
Let me ask you this. What would the Apollo need a super powerful computer for exactly?
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy
How were the photos crappy? Crappy compaired to what? I think the photos are amazingly good and of very high quality.
Could you point out the inconsistencies please? Thank you.
Originally posted by alienanderson
How about the if Moon Landings were real, but the photos they took were all really crappy, so they faked them on Earth to make nice 'Time' magazine covers, postcards etc etc?
That could explain the obvious inconsistencies in the footage and photography
Originally posted by GrandCourtJester
In fact, that's why Apollo 13 managed to get back to aerth, because they were in high earth orbit, and no where near the moon.
1.0 Summary
The Apollo 13 mission , planned as a lunar landing in the Fra Mauro area , was aborted because of an abrupt loss of service module cryogenic oxygen associated with a fire in one of the two tanks at approximately 56 hours . The lunar module provided the necessary support to sustain a minimum operational condition for a safe return to earth . A circumlunar profile was executed as the most efficient means of earth return , with the lunar module providing power and life support until transfer to the command module just prior to entry . Although the mission was unsuccessful as planned a lunar flyby and several scientific experiments were completed.
Originally posted by alienanderson
That's exactly what I mean. The photos we SEE are amazingly high quality, considering the adverse conditions under which they were taken.