Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 34
58
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
The thing that always puzzled me about the moon landings is that these men were getting massive doeses of radiation wether it be from the Van Allen belt, solar flares, moon shine(the surface of the moon has higher radiation levels than open space due to high energy protons from the sun colliding with atoms on the surface creating xrays and gamma rays) or just traveling through open space.

(emphasis added)

Well, THERE'S your problem!
Although there were - as you cite - many sources of radiation, the cumulative dosage during the Apollo missions could in no way be classified as "massive".

We could, if we wanted to, play the same game here on Earth: In your home, you are exposed to radioactive radon gas coming up through your basement or foundation, the isotope in your smoke alarm, carbon-14 from your plants & pets, Fukushima fallout and cosmic rays. If I hold out my hand (or even if I don't), it gets hit by at least one such particle every second. Here is a neat illustration of the radiation that surrounds us.

As for the specific radiation sources you cited:

Van Allen Belts Even if the astronauts orbited continuously within the Van Allen Belts, it would have taken days to build-up a truly unhealthy dose. However, they did not orbit within the belts, nor did they even traverse the densest part of any of them. They went around them, as shown in these plots:




Solar flares Basically, the moon-missions avoided solar flares the same way that I avoid having my camping trip rained-on*. I watch the weather, plan on not going if the conditions aren't right, and keeping the trip short (within the predicted good weather window). Unexpected events can occur, but the odds are - by definition - against it (and the astronauts were aware of the risk).

"Moon shine" This is a phenomenon that (like the recently-discovered 3rd Van Allen Belt) is so weak it wasn't discovered until fairly recently. How weak? Well, remember that the Law of Conservation of Energy still applies. The radiation generated by these particle collisions cannot be greater than energy of the particles themselves. In other words, if the solar radiation isn't enough to cause damage, the secondary radiation probably won't either. Which brings us to...

Just traveling through open space The Soviet Union had planned to send cosmonauts around the Moon in their Zond spacecraft. Prior to doing this, they sent several unmanned Zonds on circumlunar trajectories to verify that it was safe from an environmental and equipment point of view. Here is their report on the cosmic ray measurements.


The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occurs (sic), seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view.

(The Soviet manned Zond flights were cancelled for political reasons)

All of this said, whenever one talks about the long-term effects of radiation exposure, you have to deal with probabilities and the stick problem of establishing a causal link. For example, if you have a 1-in-100 chance of getting leukemia, and radiation exposure triples that chance, you still only have a 3-in-100 chance of contracting the disease. Also, if you do contract leukemia, how do you establish that it was due to the radiation exposure and not from your baseline odds?


Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
Yet not one of them had any negative heath effect associated with radiation exposure.

Factually incorrect. Alan Shepard died of leukemia and Jack Swigert died of bone cancer. Draw your own conclusions.



*For the record, the only time I have ever been rained-on while camping was the 1976 Sierra Conference on Astrophysics in Tuolumne Meadows. The date was set, so we toughed it out.




posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
The thing that always puzzled me about the moon landings is that these men were getting massive doeses of radiation wether it be from the Van Allen belt, solar flares, moon shine(the surface of the moon has higher radiation levels than open space due to high energy protons from the sun colliding with atoms on the surface creating xrays and gamma rays) or just traveling through open space.

(emphasis added)

Well, THERE'S your problem!
Although there were - as you cite - many sources of radiation, the cumulative dosage during the Apollo missions could in no way be classified as "massive".

We could, if we wanted to, play the same game here on Earth: In your home, you are exposed to radioactive radon gas coming up through your basement or foundation, the isotope in your smoke alarm, carbon-14 from your plants & pets, Fukushima fallout and cosmic rays. If I hold out my hand (or even if I don't), it gets hit by at least one such particle every second. Here is a neat illustration of the radiation that surrounds us.

As for the specific radiation sources you cited:

Van Allen Belts Even if the astronauts orbited continuously within the Van Allen Belts, it would have taken days to build-up a truly unhealthy dose. However, they did not orbit within the belts, nor did they even traverse the densest part of any of them. They went around them, as shown in these plots:




Solar flares Basically, the moon-missions avoided solar flares the same way that I avoid having my camping trip rained-on*. I watch the weather, plan on not going if the conditions aren't right, and keeping the trip short (within the predicted good weather window). Unexpected events can occur, but the odds are - by definition - against it (and the astronauts were aware of the risk).

"Moon shine" This is a phenomenon that (like the recently-discovered 3rd Van Allen Belt) is so weak it wasn't discovered until fairly recently. How weak? Well, remember that the Law of Conservation of Energy still applies. The radiation generated by these particle collisions cannot be greater than energy of the particles themselves. In other words, if the solar radiation isn't enough to cause damage, the secondary radiation probably won't either. Which brings us to...

Just traveling through open space The Soviet Union had planned to send cosmonauts around the Moon in their Zond spacecraft. Prior to doing this, they sent several unmanned Zonds on circumlunar trajectories to verify that it was safe from an environmental and equipment point of view. Here is their report on the cosmic ray measurements.


The comparison of the dosage evaluations with the permissible values allows the conclusion that, should no solar flare occurs (sic), seven-day flights along the trajectories of Zond-5 and 7 probes are safe from the radiation point of view.

(The Soviet manned Zond flights were cancelled for political reasons)


man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.


Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space", but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can confirm the veracity of your assertions?


edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.


Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space", but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can confirm the veracity of your assertions?


edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong. I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


They're there bro..

you just have to have to look for them .....really really really really .. closely.. but they are invisible to any telescopes currently and will have to scour the pics that are available.. good hunting with that



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.


Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space", but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of the belts.

Can you please provide the data that corroborates your assertion that the points made by 'Saint Exupery' in his post are wrong, just so we can confirm the veracity of your assertions?


edit on 4/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



.... to get pulled into this again...
let me think about it



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong. I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer.


That is precisely how I interpreted your question - as a neutral statement trying to understand information that you had (that turned-out to be false). I hope I didn't come across as condescending. For such a complex subject as space radiation, short answers really aren't the most helpful ones, and I do tend to ramble-on.

Incidentally, the form in which you wrote your question was very helpful in writing a response. If someone had asked, "What about space radiation?" then the grumpy answer would have been, "What about it?" Instead, you singled-out what you believed the overall problem to be (massive radiation dose) and what the contributing factors in this you understood to be (VABs, flares, etc.). That made it easy to address your points individually.

By all means, keep asking questions! I'll do my best to answer, time (and a certain 5-year old) allowing. I hope it helps.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90


I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong. I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.


Wait a minute, dont go anywhere.
Lets talk about Solar flares.

Because people would have you believe that no major Solar Flares occurred during an Apollo missions.
They will even tell you that NASA had the technology to predict Solar Flares and this they based
sending Astronauts to the moon.

Now what if I told you that during the Apollo missions several MAJOR solar happened?
And I mean "X" class flares.

"Solar flares are classified as A, B, C, M or X"

So "X" being the highest indicator.

How would you react to such information?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FoosM
man you people still using these tired old explanations?
This has been debunked several times already.


Which part?

I've usually seen it the other way around -- i.e., a hoax believer makes a blanket statement such as "the radiation levels are too high in space", but those statements are then debunked by people such as ATS member 'Saint Exupery' who provides data and other links to back-up that debunking by showing that radiation levels are not that high...

...or hoax believer make a blanket statement such as "the astronauts could not have survived the Van Allen belts", but then people such as 'Saint Exupery' debunks that by providing a link shows that the trans-lunar injection path taken by the Apollo spacecraft went through the thinnest part of the belts.


Wait a minute.
This trajectory that was linked, are the numbers officially from NASA?
Second, are you telling me that all Apollo missions never flew through the heart of the VABs?
And if they never flew through the heart of the VABs, why not?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90


I never said I was a moon hoax believer, just that I found it odd that these astronauts received elevated doeses of radiation and yet none of them had negative health effects. I was uninformed about the two astronauts deaths due to cansers. So I was wrong I admit it. I even said I could be wrong. I was curious about something that did not make sense to me and was given the answer. I wasn't right and I learned something. Isn't that how this is all works anyway? Or are we just here to ridicule people that make mistakes? Maybe so people stay uninformed about a subject because they are afraid of being ridiculed and called names and then put into a group and labeled as a nut.


Wait a minute, dont go anywhere.
Lets talk about Solar flares.

Because people would have you believe that no major Solar Flares occurred during an Apollo missions.
They will even tell you that NASA had the technology to predict Solar Flares and this they based
sending Astronauts to the moon.

Now what if I told you that during the Apollo missions several MAJOR solar happened?
And I mean "X" class flares.

"Solar flares are classified as A, B, C, M or X"

So "X" being the highest indicator.

How would you react to such information?


The only public recored that I could find about SPEs only go back to 1978, so I wouldn't be able to make an educated response but I will point out that one of the biggest SPEs ever recored happend in aug. 1972. I'm certainly aware that they can't be predicted with any accuracy. You can figure out the probability of one occurring, but that's far from predicting when and what direction.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BriGuyTM90

The only public recored that I could find about SPEs only go back to 1978, so I wouldn't be able to make an educated response but I will point out that one of the biggest SPEs ever recored happend in aug. 1972. I'm certainly aware that they can't be predicted with any accuracy. You can figure out the probability of one occurring, but that's far from predicting when and what direction.


Well I got a document for you:
www.ta3.sk...

Lets take a look at Apollo 12
During Apollo 12, 10 major flares occurred.
These are proton flares.



The funny thing is, the sun was so energetic prior to Apollo 12 launch, they actually could
predict that a flight to the moon would be too dangerous.


FLARE ,AND PROTON EVENT PROBABILITIES FOR THE NEXT THREE 24 HOUR
PERIODS BEGINNING 19 NOV/0400Z ENDING'23 NOV/0400Z.
CLASS M OR GREATER 90/90/90
CLASS ,X 50/50/50
PROTON EVENTS 25/35/50


90% chance for M class flares, 50% X Class?
Who would want to fly with those odds?

That info comes from this document:
ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov...

In conclusion, flare happened during the Apollo missions.
Dont let anyone tell you that they didnt.
They will probably tell you that the flares didn't emit dangerous protons, or the Apollo craft could
protect the astronauts from proton events, lol, but worrying about that is for another day.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Well I got a document for you:
www.ta3.sk...

Nothing like documents to back up what is posted.



Lets take a look at Apollo 12
During Apollo 12, 10 major flares occurred.
These are proton flares.

From which document did you get that? I couldn't find it in the ones you posted.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thanks. Do you have information showing the direction of those flares? Were any of them in the direction of the Apollo 12 astronauts?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by FoosM
 



Thanks. Do you have information showing the direction of those flares? Were any of them in the direction of the Apollo 12 astronauts?




They were in the direction of Earth and its Moon.
We know this because of the SIDs

And of course... the astronauts were in constant sunlight.

Let me offer some context:



edit on 28-4-2013 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-4-2013 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

From which document did you get that? I couldn't find it in the ones you posted.


Try this one:

www.ta3.sk...




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Can give it a shot. One in particular I like to bring up is that business with James Irwin and Scott on the Apollo 15 feigned journey. In that case they claimed the astronauts became hypokalemic(low potassium) and that accounted for their cardiac arrythmias, specifically premature ventricular contractions. So how was it that they determined that? A blood draw on the moon? It is so absurd. I'd encourage you to read NASA's story about the same. I can supple a little criticism if are curious about details from my end.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorrosenbaum
 


Well doc, they did draw their blood. When they got back, but nevertheless the two of them had K+s in the 2.8 range. I suggest you get your facts straight before criticizing. Also, their fecal specimen's showed the two moonwalkers to be incredibly potassium avid. They were pumping Na+ for K+ in their colons like there was no tomorrow which is exactly what you'd expect under the circumstances. So again, get your facts straight.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorrosenbaum
 


i'll give you the one about Slayton with make sense. lone a-fib. That doesn't make sense. But they probably made that up to get him into the astronaut front office.

Same with Shepard and his thing. I agree he's not going with legitimate vertigo. So they pretended he was sick to place him in the front office. Doesn't that make sense?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by doctorrosenbaum
 


One last point about the K+ and then I'll shut up. At least temporarily. They had everyone on spironolactone after and follow up K+s were more on the order of 3.9 or 4.0 . Then the stool specimens on Duke and Young showed essentially no K+ loss. From avid to an essential K+ vacuum. And all that is very well documented. The thing about Borman being diagnosed with SAD is a legit criticism. But they did that to save embarrassment given his voluminous diarrhea. Most are unaware that Lovell and Anders aspirated that stuff. It may have ended the program had word gotten out.
edit on 7-5-2013 by felicita because: spelled wrong



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Apollo Hardware Spotted!,


Really? Did NASA/ASU/CIA find the missing modules Apollo Eagle and Apollo Orion? NO!

Those modules will never be found.
The Apollo 11-Eagle and Apollo 16-Orion were used in the secret space program.

edit on 5/7/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: typo





new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 31  32  33    35 >>

log in

join